New permanent feature: the “Climate FAIL Files” – help needed

The revelation that the UN predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, it failed , and then the UN “disappeared” the evidence that they ever made such a prediction brightly illustrates a common theme to global warming aka climate change that has been repeated again and again.

Many times, these climate failures get a mention, and then fade into obscurity. When we try to find them later, search engines aren’t as useful or cooperative as we’d like. I want to change that by providing a central repository for such failed claims. I’ll make it a special page, part of our menu bar, with an icon link on the sidebar, suitable for placement on other websites. The Climate FAIL files page exists here.

To populate the page, as a starting seed resource, we have the excellent NumberWatch UK warm list, which lists all manner of claims about global warming, some contradictory, some silly, some serious. It is a good place to start.

Like with surfacestations.org, this project can benefit from crowd-sourcing the work. WUWT readers are already quite sharp-eyed, providing hundreds of items to our Tips & Notes section each month. I see this as simply a logical extension of what is already being done.

Here’s a good example, posted in Tips & Notes today:

Predicator says on 2011/04/16 at 9:10 am

I’ve been searching for those ‘by 2010′ things that didn’t exactly come true. Here’s one find:

Solar costs to match coal by 2010
http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=645
Monday, 9 April 2007
The cost of producing solar power will fall to that of coal-fired electricity by the end of the decade, according to a report by Europe’s Photon Consulting.

There, a perfect example of a testable prediction. That prediction can be easily documented as true/false today with available data at hand. Have at it folks.

I wish to make it clear that this new feature isn’t to be as free form as simply dropping a comment, as I don’t have time to research and chase down every claim, that’s where the crowd-sourcing comes in. I want each entry to be testable, and documented. Let’s use the scientific method, applied to claims made by figureheads, government, science and media.

For each entry, we’ll need the following:

  • The claim itself – what was stated as factual or predicted? A clear unambiguous statement, such as “50 million climate refugees by 2010”
  • Proof of the original claim – website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim being made sometime in the past.
  • A test of the of the claim, and the results – website, documents, photos, audio, video that clearly and unambiguously show the claim not coming true or not meeting the claim.

and /or

  • Proof of change in the claim (if applicable) – often, when the claim fails to materialize, goalposts get moved, such as we saw with the “50 million climate refugees” story that was originally set with a due date of 2010, is now set for the year 2020.

All of this, once documented fully, will be added to the list. It will give a reference which can be used to debunk overhyped, modified on demand, or simply false claims that we see over and over again.

Some tools to help you are listed below

General purpose search engines

Obviously there’s Google, but Google has clearly made a recent change to algorithms that may not give the results you are looking for, here’s some alternates:

Obvious ones: Bing.com Yahoo.com Ask.com Aol Search

Some “not so obvious” ones:

http://www.dogpile.com/ http://www.yandex.com/

http://www.cuil.com/

http://ixquick.com/

http://www.hotbot.com/

http://duckduckgo.com/   http://www.altavista.com/  http://startpage.com/

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

Specialty search engines

engine for scientific enquiries: http://www.scirus.com

Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/

Gooble Books: http://books.google.com/

The Wayback Machine (finds old versions of websites)

Archive.org (even broader search to include audio, images, books)

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

Archiving tools

Webcite (makes a permanent copy of any web page, free)

Tinypic (free storage of screencaps and images)

Local website archive (free and paid versions, allows saving entire websites to disk)

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

I’ll add to this list as new ones are suggested in comments.

The new page on WUWT is Climate FAIL Files and is ready to be populated. Start your discussions here and if you have subjects to tackle, list them in comments. I’ll add them as we go.

Discussion will move to a new thread at some point, but let’s start here first.

Here’s how I propose to format the entries:

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

The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Carribean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said:  …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.

The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.

The Proof: Population actually gained in some Carribean Islands for which 2010 census figures were available. Then when challenged on these figures, the UN tried to hide the original claim from view. See: The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches the disappearing attempt

The Change in claim: Now it is claimed that it will be 10 years into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

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

OK, you know what to do.

Advertisements

133 thoughts on “New permanent feature: the “Climate FAIL Files” – help needed

  1. The Daily Bayonet has count down clocks in the side bar. http://dailybayonet.com/

    Right now there is;
    1156 day until Al Gore says the ice caps will be gone
    260 days until 4.5 billion people are dead from AGW
    627 days until Nissan sells 500,000 EV’s a year
    3533 days until V Bites outsells McDonalds

  2. Anthony, I think this has the potential to be a very useful resource. May I humbly suggest that before it gets too far down the road there is some thought put into creating categories that stories/claims can be categorized into. This will take a couple of extra minutes up front when stories/claims are documented, but will make the resource immensely more useful down the road.

    There is a big difference between a claim made by a graduate student as part of a thesis and a claim put out by the IPCC or a large scientific organization. In addition, there is a difference between a claim made off the cuff to a reporter, one made orally at a conference, and one made in a peer reviewed paper. I think it would be very helpful to categorize the claims based on the strength/type of provenance, and this would also help to track back to the original sources. For example, if a claim shows up in a news report that is fine, but if it can then be tracked back to a published paper it makes the claim that much stronger.

    In addition, there are claims about different things, and it might be useful to categorize them at least at a high level. For instance, the two claims you cite above are both quite interesting (50 million climate refugees and solar as cheap as coal), but potentially have very different audiences. Perhaps it would be possible to categorize claims based on the area covered: CAGW-caused natural disasters, renewable energy, resource scarcity, etc.

  3. May I suggest that someone set up a website that archives screencaps of the pages? The website would also categorize such events for easy reference. For example, I just checked, climate-fail.com is available. I suggest http://www.name.com to register a domain name. If you go to http://www.nodaddy.com you will see that GoDaddy will pull down a website and give the owner little time to make a defense.

  4. UK Met Office predictions are always a farce. I’m trying to find that prediction up to 2014 but that also seems to have disappeared. Something along lines of half the years up to 2014 being warmer than the warmest on record.

  5. Warmists have learned from 1984 : put everything into the memory holes.

    Hell, even in Canada we can see that the planet isn’t warming up. The Prairies (in the middle of the continent) are supposed to become a desert. But according to many locals (in Regina, Saskatchewan), it has gotten wetter since 2005…

  6. Politicians and Patricians should be a separate category. Idiots like Boxer, Waxman, Prince Charles, etc should provide a wealth of info.

  7. To be fair, you should also invite Warmistas to post claims that have been verified, ‘Alarmist Success’, if you will.

    I don’t expect there will be many.

    /Mr Lynn

  8. Actual global temperature has been below IPCC’s 1980 predicted global warming trend. Since 2001 global temperature has been cooling instead of warming.

    In 1980 IPCC Predicted 2 C/century warming. A1B SRES in the AR4:

    By contrast, Don Easterbrook made a prediction in 2001 for a cooling trend due the shift from warm to cool PDO phase beginning about 2007 is now clearly showing up in the global cooling trend since 2001. e.g.
    Don Easterbrook’s AGU paper on potential global cooling

    The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode

    Lucia Liljegren compares global temperatures and trend uncertainties against IPCC models.

    Notice that the trend associated with the multi-model mean is outside the range consistent with the ARIMA uncertainty intervals for HadCrut. . . It is worth noting that the projected trend is well outside the uncertainty intervals estimated using ARIMA; this is best evaluated by comparing the slope of the dashed green lines to the slope of the dashed black line. The mean of the observations is below the multi-model mean; . . . Currently, these results indicate a fairly strong rejection of the hypothesis that the multi-model mean and HadCrut agree.

    See Lucia’s Figure: The Blackboard April 16, 2011
    Hadcrut3 versus Multi-modal mean

  9. We should try to find it at the Source, with one or more Peoples real Names, titles and ‘officialness’.
    New stories, web pages blogs etc. and the generic term ‘scientists’ will not be as effective as Actually Naming the Person or Persons that said it, then the students, other professors, other polititions and people in the un-biased media will Know who said it, when. Things like the minutes of the house of commons, offical pubilcations etc. would be nice to have.

    I think that if we can ‘go to the source’ then actual list of Names might be smaller than many people would think.

  10. Hey, I just noticed your new addition on WUWT.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/
    A few years ago I started writing down predictions as I heard them on the TV, and saving articles from the newspaper. Its more of a “climate prediction watch” as it has long term forecasts, such as this one:
    Written down on April 3, 2007:
    2007 Hurricane Season: 17 storms 9 hurricanes
    Get ready for drastic change, due to climate.
    2050 – Non reliable snowmobile season, Extinct species, Impossible Rideau Canal skating.
    Something about lime disease and a 20 C rise in temperatures in 100 years.

    I was thinking you could add a separate section for predictions to watch.
    While I was composing this comment, you have a new post about this new WUWT feature and I see from comments that some blogs have “count down clocks” for various alarmists predictions.
    On second thought on prediction watching, isn’t the IPCC reports just chock full of such things? Your watch page, if you created one, would quickly become overwhelmed with items.
    One trick on predictions using accelerating trends is that in the short term, its hard to tell a linear trend from an exponential trend near the tangent to the curve. But in time, the likelihood starts to reveal itself, so that even years before the final date one can tell how bonkers the prediction was.

  11. Kilimanjaro ice cap
    Prediction:

    In February of 2001, Thompson presented his amazing findings at an annual gathering of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. But he had just returned from an expedition to Mount Kilimanjaro in West Africa and he also had some alarming news to share: the ice cap on the mountain was disappearing at an incredible rate. According to Thompson’s data, 82 percent of the ice cap had melted between 1912 and 2000, and the rate of disintegration was accelerating. He predicted that by 2015 the cap would be gone.

    Lonnie Thompson Biography http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Sh-Z/Thompson-Lonnie.html#ixzz1Jk7h9kpd

    Prediction failing:
    Kilimanjaro regaining its snow cap

  12. RE: Solar costs to match coal by 2010

    I don’t want to nitpick you, but if you look at the price of solar electric per watt from 1980 to today, there is a clear downward trend. –>> IF <<– the trend continues, solar will match coal in around 30 or so years. You are correct, the prediction of 2010 was flat out wrong. However, around 2040, it MIGHT be possible. This raises an interesting question of how to rate a prediction that gives the date as too soon, but it happens much later on.

  13. I’ve been doing something similar myself on and off (tagged “Warble Gloaming Dates For Your Diary”) and off the top of my head I know that the first entry on my list is the James Hansen’s claim that the West Side Highway in New York would be drowned by the Hudson by now, as detailed right here on WUWT.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
    I see that it’s also had the revisionist treatment and is now supposed to have been 40 years and due around 2030, but as you point out there it’s still pretty dubious since you’d expect to have seen a significant rise in the water level by now. Worthy of inclusion IMO, and you already have all the info here.

    Also we have the specific claim by Dr David Viner in 2000 that British children will not know snow by 2005, give or take a year, which has been disproved by a succession of three or four pretty cold winters with plenty of snow.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    And in July 2009 David Attenborough claimed that the world’s tropical reefs faced “imminent destruction” and while it’s only been 18 months the word imminent implies that again we should have seen something happening by now.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1205087/Only-20-years-left-Sensational-pictures-Australias-Great-Barrier-Reef-bring-home-natural-treasure-look-lose.html
    Of course that same article has another claim, by a marine scientist called Charlie Veron, that the Great Barrier Reef will be gone within 20 years, which is not what I’d call imminent but is certainly specific and worth remembering so we can check back in 2029.

    We have a few due this decade too. Someone’s already mentioned The Goracle’s well publicised claim that the Arctic will be ice free in five years, which would be 2013.
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/the-annotated-gore-climate-speech/
    Though of course Pen Hadow reckons ten years:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6326446/Arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-a-decade-according-to-Pen-Hadow.html
    Either way we won’t have too long to wait before those claims can be tested.

    The only other ones I’d come across were fairly non-specific alarmism of the “only X years to get it all under control or everything’s screwed” variety by WWF (parroted by The Teletubbygraph’s Louise Gray, natch), the His Royal Strangeness the Prince of Fails (twice) and his mates from the 100 months mob, and of the UK’s Met Office. I have links if you want them but the lack of specifics seem to make them a bit vague for this.

  14. Anthony, this is an excellent idea and many thanks for providing such a list and in such a prominent location.

    Here’s the laundry list of horribles due to Global Warming taken from California’s notorious AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. There are no specific dates associated with any of these calamitous predictions, however. Note that none of these has yet come to pass, instead, sea levels are decreasing, snow pack is growing, and electrical supplies are quite ample.

    “SECTION 1. Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) is added
    to the [California] Health and Safety Code, to read:
    DIVISION 25.5. CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS
    ACT OF 2006
    PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
    Chapter 1. Title of Division
    38500. This division shall be known, and may be cited, as the
    California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

    Chapter 2. Findings and Declarations

    38501. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
    (a) Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being,
    public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The
    potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of
    air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the
    state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the
    displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to
    marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the
    incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related
    problems.
    (b) Global warming will have detrimental effects on some of
    California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing,
    recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry. It will also increase the
    strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer
    air-conditioning in the hottest parts of the state.”

    Here’s the text, broken into the exact predictions:

    1. the exacerbation of air quality problems,
    2. a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack,
    3. a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences,
    4. damage to marine ecosystems,
    5. damage to the natural environment, and
    6. an increase in the incidences of
    o infectious diseases,
    o asthma, and
    o other human health-related problems.
    7. detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including:
    o agriculture,
    o wine,
    o tourism,
    o skiing,
    o recreational and commercial fishing, and
    o forestry
    8. increase the strain on electricity supplies necessary to meet the demand for summer air-conditioning in the hottest parts of the state.

    web citation: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf

    also in California Health & Safety Code, at 38501:

    http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=38001-39000&file=38501

  15. Hi Anthony, Thank you so much for this feature. I rummaged over this idea myself a few months ago, but didn’t take action. Well, the credit for actually doing something must all be yours. One necessary extra though is the credibility rating of the authority behind the claim: scientific (peer-reviewed, or by the central ‘team’ or an official climate body like NOAA or CSIRO etc.), or political (the UN, a national government, a president etc.). In other words, how devastating is it to the AGW claim that this prediction fails? I don’t think that we need go as far as Eric suggests above. People can categorise their interests for themselves; the central point of the show is to prove that AGW is either not scientific, or, if scientific, has been disproved. The central point of science is testability. Has the theory made a prediction that failed? That is what matters.

    You are sure to be criticised for only looking at the negative. Well boo hoo, half the planet is sifting the sands of trivial factoids looking for the positive. But perhaps a side bar reserved for REALLY unexpected predictions that did come true (not rubbish like “more droughts” followed by a drought). I can’t think of any, but you never know. If any of the resident trolls think they can suggest some, we should be open to letting them put their case in the normal article blog and see how it stands up to scrutiny.

    Thanks again!

  16. Robb876 says:
    April 16, 2011 at 7:03 pm
    By 2012 you will be the most hated skeptic in America….

    That’s testable! In 259 days.

  17. Anthony, you might want to adjust that to “The Proof Of Falsification/Refutation” or “Falsification Proof” or even occasionally “Validation Proof” if one is to be scientifically neutral about it.

    Great idea by the way. Had it myself but it’s likely much better here since you get the leverage of the crowd sourced brains.

  18. Everyone’s crystal ball is cloudy, especially about the future.

    I’m more interested in prediction success rate, rather than individual examples. So, like Mr Lynn above, I’d like to see successful predictions archived too.

    That may be hard, since only gloom-and-doom predictions get enough publicity to be noticed. But somehow the world continues, so most of the gloom and doom never happens.

  19. If this page is going to be around for a while, can you please spell island correctly in The Proof section: “Population actually gained in some Carribean Isalnd…” — John M Reynolds

    [Fixed, thanx, ~dbs]

  20. Hey contrarians, remember that over 97% of the experts (who know better than you) agree with the young people. They are not going to idly put up with your nonsense for much longer – the Civil Rights movement comparison is apt – it’s a moral issue.

  21. Bob Diaz says:
    April 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    Even if the cost of solar matched coal, you couldn’t install enough to make a dent in energy needs. To start, you need about 10,000 km^2 of PV or other solar. Good luck.

  22. How about one section for photo’s of wind turbines failures – thinking of burning, disintegrating, inoperable or abandoned images and video

  23. Mr. Watts, this is less an example of a prediction than of a nice disappearing act, and it is a good warning to take screen grabs as I have revisited the story (thanks for the inspiration) and they have erased the fingerprints, even from the Wayback Machine. It’s your story from 11/3/2009 about the Inconvenient Kids Science Web Page NOAA tried disappearing (they have since apparently been successful as all Wayback links now redirect to the current pro-AGW line-toeing purged page):

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/noaa-deletes-an-inconvenient-kids-science-web-page/

    I had used this in my dealings on another site (that turned into a lot of fun) but now it is apparently gone for good. It should be a lesson to us all to take screen grabs (even the linked page in your story is showing the current page rather than the old one). If you want the full text of the offending original page, it is here in my original comment:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200911050040#635180

    I love that the person replied to me by calling me a liar and beautifully calling the text I had quoted from NOAA “re-written to twist it to the utter nonsense of deniers.” It was a good day and I have you to thank for it. Keep up the great work.

  24. Way back in 1998, Igor Panarin was predicting the downfall of the USA by 2009. His latest review came out I think on the Wall Street Journal article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html in June 2010

    OK, the US has survived and appears to be on an economic upturn, with Dr Matthew Ashton having a relevant comment on his Blog at http://drmatthewashton.com/2011/02/08/political-predictions-they-got-wrong-no8-igor-panarin-predicts-the-collapse-of-the-usa/

    (sarc)Not CAGW – but just as accurate (/sarc)

    Andy

  25. To be fair, the “change in claim” section for the refugee claim example points to a secondary source — namely Dr. Tirado attributing the 2020 date to the UN. Is there a primary source? (Such as the disappeared web page, or the mention in the 2008 proceedings.)

  26. Yo, Dr. D, that sounds pretty threatening. Idly putting up with our nonsense? What do you suggest they’ll do, go all James Lee on us?

    AGW is a movement all right, in every sense of the word, but you have chosen the side of the immoral who would limit the economic development of the world’s poorest to make it more “sustainable.” Nice ring to it, I’ll give you that, but it’s a death sentence for millions. I guess, in part at least, that’s the point though.

    As for your 97% meme, I have covered that one several times now, but hey, since there are folks like you out there still parroting the nonsensus, I’ll direct you to my comment at JoNova’s site as I have done so before when confronted with that AGW fan favorite. It is comment #49 (could not sort out the permalink):

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/

    Do yourself a favor and rid yourself of the 97% come-on doc. That might work wonders with “the young people” at your gigs, but not for long. They’ll grow up too. Until then, Cheers!

  27. Dr. Robert Davidson,

    Thanks for your comment, what do you mean when you say:

    “They are not going to idly put up with your nonsense for much longer – the Civil Rights movement comparison is apt – it’s a moral issue.”

    What specific retorts or actions are you referring to?

  28. Claim: Arctic Ice May Melt by 2010
    By: Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet
    Proof of the original claim: – website dated 16 November 2007
    [text copy and image copy of this website has been done]

    http://greenparty.ca/node/3196

    Arctic Ice May Melt by 2010: Scientists Scared
    By Jim Harris on 16 November 2007 – 12:28pm

    “The Arctic Ocean ice may completely melt by 2010 — something that hasn’t happened for more than a million years, according to Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a leading polar researcher.”

    The Test: Did Arctic completely melt by 2010? Answer: No
    Proof: I’m not sure which is the best source!

  29. Must pop over to Donna Laframboise’s blog. She is a treasure when it comes to digging the dirt on these purveyors of lies!

  30. @ Dr Bob Davidson

    “…remember that over 97% of the experts (who know better than you)…” Keep making predictions. That fail.

    I am sure if you can find proven catastrophic prediction, Anthony would post it up for you. I bet you don’t.

  31. I looked at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm as suggested and as it’s early in the morning I thought I’d just look at one link “Alligators in the Thames”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bet_you_my_house_against_alligators_in_the_thames#49838

    before going out for my morning constitutional risking life and limb by my local Thames tributary.

    This references the story to be debunked http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html

    Aaagh Page not found! Is there a pattern developing of Global dissappearance of failed predictions?

    Ah well off to fight the alligators.

  32. Do it.
    We will publicise it.
    I have a challenge outstanding with a friend of mine for him to find any catastrophic AGW induced prediction that has come true.
    I am still waiting.

  33. galileonardo says April 16, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    It is comment #49 (could not sort out the permalink):

    Here you are:-
    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/what-does-it-take-for-a-worldwide-consensus-just-75-opinions/#comment-167671

    How to do it:-
    Open the Source page in your browser using menu options:-
    FireFox: View>Page Source
    Internet Explorer: View>Source
    On the Source page use the Find Option (Control F) to search for a string of characters that occurs within the target you wish to locate (e.g. YourName)
    Inspect the code to find the comment identification # number associated with your target. e.g. #comment-167671
    Append the comment identification # to the full webpage address of the original page.

  34. galileonardo says:
    April 16, 2011 at 9:24 pm
    …the Inconvenient Kids Science Web Page NOAA tried disappearing
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/noaa-deletes-an-inconvenient-kids-science-web-page/

    I read your comments from:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200911050040#635180

    and later there your write “All they have done is delete the offending paragraphs and replace them with the filler “Fast Facts” feature. I am curious as to what will ultimately replace that passage, but rest assured it will toe the AGW line.”

    I don’t know if you have checked subsequently but sure enough, the Fast Facts filler at the moment is as follows:
    “Fast Facts
    To see the full effect of a greenhouse effect, look to the planet Venus. The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen, with the remaining amount, less than 1%, of other gasses.

    The carbon dioxide atmosphere has allowed the temperature of the surface to exceed 900°F (482°C). This is hot enough to melt lead. Space craft that have successfully landed on Venus, despite being well protected, have lasted only about an hour in the excessive heat and crushing pressure.”

    As many WUWT readers will know, you have to compare the temperature at the same atmospheric pressure, and you find the temperatures are comparable to earths temperature when comparing at similar pressures.
    Just reaffirms that politics is indeed dressed up as Climate Science.

  35. This references the story to be debunked http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html

    Aaagh Page not found! Is there a pattern developing of Global dissappearance of failed predictions?

    Here, in the Internet Archive’s Wayback machine:
    http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20090302174540/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html

    ..and I see it references a story in New Scientist. I don’t know whether its worth following the trail any further, to see if there’s any named person who pronounced the nonsense. I suspect not

  36. A good idea, Anthony, but confine the issue to very well testable aspects, like depopulation of certain areas. Note how ill-defined ‘climate refugee’ is, as it refers to someones motives. Even tourism can be captured under this term.

  37. “malcolm says:
    April 17, 2011 at 1:09 am

    This references the story to be debunked http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25114359-5009760,00.html

    Good find malcolm, I got back safely from my walk. I note my anxiety was unfounded as the original article made no mention of alligators in the Thames as they will all be too busy basking off the English coast.

    I did see a black cat stalking a crow but am pretty convinced it wasn’t a puma or leopard that has migrated to London to escape the increasing seering heat of tropical climate change.

    There were 2 newly hatched fluffy little ducklings on the river and immediately I was concerned that they might be at risk from a climate change induced sea-level rise sweeping up the Thames washing them and the fluffy black pussycat away like in the film.

    Who can I sue for psychological damage caused by such scare story induced flashbacks?

  38. March 2000 … “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”, according to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU)

  39. Anthony,

    The movie “The Day After Tomorrow” has a huge error in the climate model that was being predicted.
    The models of cloud cover vastly crossed the equator.
    CLOUDS AND STORMS NEVER CROSS THE EQUATOR!
    Just follow any satellite mapping.

  40. I’m sure there must be rich fishing in the pronouncements of David Suzuki over the years.

  41. Anthony: Dr. Robert Davidson is a music teacher. But I would still be interested in hearing any proof of his allegations, despite his total lack of credentials in climate change.

    From the website his name is linked to:

    Robert Davidson is currently a lecturer in Composition at the University of Queensland. Davidson studied composition with Terry Riley in California and New York, and completed a PhD in composition at the University of Queensland. He previously studied South Indian vocal music in Kerala, India. He was a bassist in the Australian Opera, Sydney Symphony, and Queensland Symphony orchestras before working as a freelance computer programmer. Davidson formed Topology with its four other principals in 1996 and has played at numerous festivals and venues around the world.

  42. This is a great idea Anthony. Do we put suggestions in the Tips and Notes? It would be nice to have a dedicated page to post suggestion on the menu bar.

    Failed AGW Predictions And Forecasts
    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

    Eight failed environmental predictions and forecasts
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

    Here are some that failed:
    “It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year.” [2008]
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

    “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” [2000]
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/climate-psychics-10-year-old-snow-prediction-fails-miserably/

  43. Dr Robert Davidson says:
    April 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    “Hey contrarians, remember that over 97% of the experts (who know better than you) agree with the young people. They are not going to idly put up with your nonsense for much longer.”

    Dr. Davidson, be careful what you wish for; the tables might be turned on *you* more easily than you might imagine.

  44. One suggestion is to only include peer reviewed claims and IPCC claims. Warmists defend themselves by stating that the claim was not peer reviewed.

  45. Further to my last comment is may be worth having a dedicated page for Al Gore’s predictions. He needs dedicated rebuttals.

  46. Mr Lynn says:
    April 16, 2011 at 7:12 pm
    To be fair, you should also invite Warmistas to post claims that have been verified, ‘Alarmist Success’, if you will.

    I don’t expect there will be many.

    /Mr Lynn

    Hi Mr Lynn,
    Show me a Warmist blog that does this?

    BTW WUWT links to Real Climate while the last time I looked Real Climate does not link to WUWT (though some others do). Warmists don’t play fair so why should we? They are the ones making claims so let them list it for themselves; WUWT is a sceptic blog not a confirmist blog.

  47. Most of the predictions by Sir Nicholas Stern from earlier in the 21st century should be easily falsifiable by now.

  48. Very useful, a climate change science, ‘Graveyard of Failed Predictions’. Thanx Anthony.

  49. Brilliant idea! I’m sure no one has ever thought of this bef…….oh, wait……there’s that c3 headlines site that your readers mention from time to time. Sure enough that sites got a ‘prediction failure’ page with multiple pages of links to climate fail articles. Hey, what the heck, save yourself some time, and ahem, just borrow that site’s content also!

    http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

  50. Bob Diaz says:
    April 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    RE: Solar costs to match coal by 2010

    I don’t want to nitpick you, but if you look at the price of solar electric per watt from 1980 to today, there is a clear downward trend. –>> IF <<– the trend continues, solar will match coal in around 30 or so years. You are correct, the prediction of 2010 was flat out wrong. However, around 2040, it MIGHT be possible. This raises an interesting question of how to rate a prediction that gives the date as too soon, but it happens much later on.

    REPLY: Oh but you are nitpicking, and it’s a lame nitpick if ever I saw one. Fair enough, if someone makes a claim that we’re all going to Hell in a handcart sometime between the next, say, ten and fifty years, then fine, you can’t hold them to account when it doesn’t come to pass within ten years (although one can and should ridicule such flimsy, cynical “predictions” for the very reason that they are unaccountable). On the other hand there are the all-too-arrogant claims designed to alarm us into believing the world as we know it is going to end at some definitive point in the future if we don’t change our evil ways. When the prediction fails to come to pass, I’m not going to “rate the prediction” any more kindly just because it “might” yet come to pass some time later.

  51. Anthony,
    I beg you to reconsider.

    If you proceed with this plan it will be disastrous. Based upon my models and data (proprietery) the planet will run out of pixels by 2015. 98% certainty.

  52. May I suggest that the Fail Files be organised into a table with categories. For example Arctic melt, Gulf Stream, Temperature, etc. as it would be much quicker to track down and use the appropriate category.

  53. jaymam says:
    April 16, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    …………………
    Arctic Ice May Melt by 2010: Scientists Scared
    By Jim Harris on 16 November 2007 – 12:28pm

    “The Arctic Ocean ice may completely melt by 2010 — something that hasn’t happened for more than a million years, according to Louis Fortier, scientific director of ArcticNet, a leading polar researcher.”

    The scientist was attempting to deceive. The Arctic has been ice-free during the last 11,000 years.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227

  54. Regarding “Dr” Robert Davidson.

    As an Australian I cannot tolerate the not so veiled threat of violence against scientific sceptics who disagree with Mr Davidson.
    Australia is a country that has a sad history when it comes to violence against women, indigenous peoples and minorities who refuse to accept the “consensus” line. People of good will would do well to disown this reactionary posturing and remember that there are laws in Australia against Incitement and Hate Crimes (vilification and incitement to violence on the basis of person’s beliefs).
    I wonder if the other members of the band (Topology) are aware of Dr Davidson’s activities, after all, they have a lot of government funding supporting them; perhaps they would like to keep it.

    From “Dr” Davidson’s website

    “Topology is assisted by the Commonwealth Government through the Australia Council its arts funding and advisory body and by the Queensland Government through Arts Queensland. Topology also gratefully acknowledges the support of the Brisbane Powerhouse and Boyd’s The Piano Shop.This website was proudly funded by the Queensland Government’s Gambling Community Benefit Fund. Topology is supported by the Australian Government through the Australia International Cultural Council, an initiative of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade”.

    Dr Davidson, learn a bit of moderation (then a bit of science).

    Marine_Shale

  55. Excellent project, and guaranteed to spoil many an AGW alarmist’s day for the foreseeable future (or more accurately, unforeseeable future).

  56. This is very good idea. Thanks for taking it on.

    However.. you may find it rather more work than you probably expect. In particular you’ll find that WP is not designed to deal with the rapid fire change this kind of thing requires for success. What that means is that you’ll find yourself spending time doing the things it doesn’t – and because that seems a waste of your time, I’d like to offer a small suggestion.

    You need a wiki type system for this – one in which lots of people can make changes, but those changes can be tracked and managed by subject experts. More, to back this up, you probably need to maintain a repository of linked web pages (so the people who put them up can’t make you look like an idiot by changing them). Once that’s all in place, the page link from the main WUWT site can be maintained within your WP environment and things will work with a minimum of fuss and bother.

    If you want to discuss this, or want help making it work.. well, you have my email and I’ll be happy to help.

  57. I think this compilation of information should result in one or more creatively named ‘awards’ being presented to persons or institutions who, in the reader’s opinions, represent the zenith of failed prediction. The award’s monetary component would of course never materialize.

  58. slow to follow says: April 17, 2011 at 12:45 am Bob Davidson – I think you mean “It’s a marketing issue”?

    slow, Speaking of marketing I am dealing with a slightly inconvienent issue with my 95% efficient propane furnace. The idiot lights on my 9 year old system keep telling me different issues are causing my primary heating system to turn itself off. The problem is only slightly inconvienent- it’s getting a bit warmer in my foothill location in Northern CA- as my back up portable electric heaters are able to warm things up so that it is only slightly inconvenient temperature wise in the morning. I wonder how much CO2 is being generated by the HVAC guys who have been out to diagnose the problem (let alone fit it- I am awaiting their recommendations). The propane supply company is due out on Tuesday to check their part of the system to ensure adequate flows (and quality of the gas). I wonder if it’s only me that has issues with their energy efficient appliances requiring more maintenance and having a shorter lifespan then the older less energy efficient appliances. There must be some reason that Maytag doesn’t market their appliances as never needing the repair guy………..

    An article by Cynthia Mitchcell, et al entitled “Stabilizing CA Demand- The real reasons behind the state’s energy savings” http://www.fortnightly.com/exclusive.cfm?o_id=159 is an enlightening review of the factors that influenced the stable kw/capita usage in CA.

    “In 2005, California’s energy policymakers and regulators established energy efficiency (EE) as California’s highest priority resource for meeting future needs in a clean, reliable, and low-cost manner.1 In 2006, the California legislature and governor positioned energy conservation and efficiency as the cornerstone of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. The Act mandates a 2020 statewide limit on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels. Compliance will be nothing short of Herculean: California will have to reduce per capita energy usage in a manner that accommodates continued brisk population growth and protects the state’s economy from economic dislocations and recessionary pressures”

  59. David, UK says:
    This raises an interesting question of how to rate a prediction that gives the date as too soon, but it happens much later on.

    I would answer this by looking at stock market predictions. Take for example the great run-up in the price of a barrel of oil to around $150 back in 2008. Several reputable experts were predicting that oil would reach $200 and eventually $300 and even $500 and beyond. If based on that advice you committed a significant portion of your savings to the expected rise in oil, chances are you would be struggling to find a second or third job to pay your bills today. Might oil reach $200 or $300 a barrel some day? Some experts believe so, but the original forecast was wrong because they got the time frame wrong.

  60. Dr Robert Davidson says:
    April 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    Hey contrarians, remember that over 97% of the experts (who know better than you) agree with the young people. They are not going to idly put up with your nonsense for much longer – the Civil Rights movement comparison is apt – it’s a moral issue.
    ===============================================

    lol…nice to see the warmists’ Hitler/Mao/Stalin wing checking in…..bet he even sports the little moustache:

    “VE VILL NOT TOLERATE DISSENT….ZE GESTAPO IS OND ZE WAY!!!”

  61. PaulH says:
    April 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
    David, UK says:
    “This raises an interesting question of how to rate a prediction that gives the date as too soon, but it happens much later on.”

    You need a dictionary. The time stamp is part of the prediction. Take an obvious example. If I predict a full moon tonight but it does not occur until next week then my prediction was false, and known to be false as of tonight.

  62. Marine_Shale says:
    April 17, 2011 at 7:14 am

    Regarding “Dr” Robert Davidson.

    As an Australian I cannot tolerate the not so veiled threat of violence against scientific sceptics who disagree with Mr Davidson.

    ——–

    Are there different comments that show up in Australia? I only see one comment that even remotely has a smidgeon of a threat: DirkH’s “Dr. Davidson, be careful what you wish for; the tables might be turned on *you* more easily than you might imagine”…
    all that did was to mirror the implied violence in Dr. Davidson’s own nasty little letter.

    Dr. Davidson, no cause that relies on lies, threats and propaganda can in any sense of the word be deemed moral. Sorry you don’t care for the truth, which is the focus of the efforts of Anthony Watts and those who contribute here.

    Does anyone here have a link to headlines of the past 25 years predicting catastrophes or especially of the ‘we have just 5 years to act before it’s too late’ kind? I wanted to add some slides to my AGW lecture about the hyped alarmism that began in the 1980s and somehow could not locate any of these. Thanks!

  63. Is Eva Morales related to Lucy?

    All bow down to Pachamama.

    Why do all our current deity’s names have a -mama suffix?
    ——————————————————–

    Excuse me sir, that cockroach has rights
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/04/16/rex-murphy-excuse-me-sir-that-cockroach-has-rights/

    ——snip———

    And just this week, Bolivia’s president, Eva Morales, hailed national legislation that would enshrine the “rights of Mother Nature” — human rights extended to earth itself. Pause to marvel at the powers of the Bolivian legislature. May we note that Morales is a James Cameron fan? I think we may.

    Vice-President Alvaro García Linera describes the country’s new legislation (“The Law of Mother Earth”) as making “world history. Earth is the mother of all.” He also gushed that the law “establishes a new relationship between man and nature.”

    The Bolivian legislation, we are informed by Britain’s Guardian newspaper, “has been heavily influenced by a resurgent indigenous Andean spiritual world view which places the environment and the earth deity known as the Pachamama at the centre of all life. Humans are considered equal to all other entities.”

    Remember this the next time someone says that the science of global warming is “settled,” for many environmentalists are inspired not by science, but by spirituality — Andean and otherwise.

    What does the new Bolivian law mean? It means that tics that suck the blood, the choking sulphur pits of volcanic vents, the indestructible cockroach, the arid desert wastes and the bleak frigid spaces of the planet’s poles — everything from the locusts that despoil, to the great mountain ranges, the earth and all that is in it, are to have … rights. (About the other planets, Morales is silent.)

    ———–snip——–

  64. and, trying to keep up with the ‘a jones’, I fell behind.

    I did not see your post. Sorry, mate.

  65. ” Taphonomic says:
    April 17, 2011 at 9:29 am

    May I suggest that you dedicate this project to the memory of Julian Simon?”

    I second that motion!

  66. I’m looking at BBC “global warming” articles. In the first 78 articles (Nov 97 – Mar 99) I’ve found only 5 testable predictions : 1 is anti-alarmist, and 2 have a long time yet to fail. That leaves 2. One is about Larsen B which I expect to bear fruit, and the other is as follows;

    Date of claim: 8 Nov 97
    Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/25507.stm
    Webcite: http://www.webcitation.org/5y1FBLsft (provisional)

    The claim: Scientists say even a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions (on 1990 levels) would not slow rising temperatures for at least fifty years.

    Falsification. ***Can anyone improve on this?***
    The Falsification source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm
    Webcite: http://www.webcitation.org/5y1GQI5U5 (provisional)

    Q – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    “Yes, but only just.” Prof. Phil Jones – UEA CRU

    And that is _despite_ CO2 emissions being higher than 1990 levels.

  67. Anthony, could I suggest that you add a section for “upcoming” predictions, so they can be tracked and verified at the appropriate time? For example, here is “NASA climate scientist” Jay Zwally predicting that, “the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

    It would be good to capture this information along with a stored capture of the source web site in case it “disappears” before we get to the predicted date.

  68. If you have a PhD, it is generally considered rather unethical to use the Dr. title in circumstances that it does not relate to. ie, A music or arts PhD should not be used as a titled in a science forum, because it is totally irrelevant.

  69. “vigilantfish says:
    April 17, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Does anyone here have a link to headlines of the past 25 years predicting catastrophes or especially of the ‘we have just 5 years to act before it’s too late’ kind?”

    See the following at:
    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MH&s_site=miami&p_multi=MH&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB33CF66D507218&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

    Miami Herald – July 5, 1989 – 2E SCIENCE

    GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the…

  70. http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/past-alarm-worlds-coral-40-gone-by-2010.html

    On Monday 22 April 2002 ABC’s flagship current affairs program, 4 Corners, broadcast the following alarming prediction in a report titled: Beautiful one day.
    Across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts. It’s estimated that more than a quarter have been lost and that 40 per cent could be gone by 2010.
    From the transcript:
    According to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, 10 per cent of the world’s reefs were lost by 1992.
    27 per cent were lost by the year 2000.
    And it’s expected 40 per cent will be gone by 2010.

    In 1997 the area of the world’s coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/ccxb165016ma8792/

    If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world’s coral reefs should be around 153,000km2.
    Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2. Reference-http://pdf.wri.org/factsheets/factsheet_reefs_main.pdf.
    This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010.

  71. A couple of cost items for PV for those looking at what PV costs:

    Sempra has an agreement to sell the output of a large PV system outside of Los Vagas to PG&E. The prices (which will vary based on the time of day and time of the year the power is generated) that PG&E is going to pay for the energy will be availble in a few years- from the CPUC I believe. The current CPUC approval of the contract between PG&E and Sempra is redacted as far as prices go.

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Sempras-Copper-Mountain-is-Now-the-Largest-PV-Plant-in-U.S/

    The CEC has been keeping track of PV systems prices for a few years- you can sort the data base by ISO, location, system size, residential, commercial, year of installation, etc, as they were initially responsible for distributing the rebate for solar installations. As an FYI the CEC bases rebate amounts on the AC power (to take into account system specific panel and inverter efficiencies) not the DC (or STS ratings). It is interesting to note that the price for PV systems for commercial applications has been dropping big time over the last year.

    http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/quarterly_cost_per_watt/

  72. Keith Hogan says:
    April 17, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Anthony, could I suggest that you add a section for “upcoming” predictions, so they can be tracked and verified at the appropriate time?

    This is a very good suggestion.

  73. Some suggestions for searching.

    Search for some keywords plus “by 2010” or some other date.
    If you find an outrageous claim be sure to save an image copy of the website before you post the address here, in case someone deletes the website.

    e.g. Google “sea level” “by 2010”

    gives me this amusingly wrong prediction by UCLA students (who of course don’t matter):
    http://www.studentgroups.ucla.edu/enigma/writing/fut-his/1991-2010.html

    “In 1990 Enigma created its own “future history”, attempting to create a plausible, or at least entertaining, description of the events over the next 130 years of Earth’s history.

    Global warming becomes a reality — climactic turmoil across the world as weather patterns shift. Desertification becomes a critical problem.
    Sea level rises 1 meter by the year 2000, and an additional 2 meters by 2010.”

    [Shows the paranoia of 1990!]

  74. Perhaps links to InTrade or other predictions markets for selected forecasts? It would be interesting to see how well those do, too.

  75. Gary Mount says April 17, 2011 at 1:08 am:
    “…but sure enough…”

    Sure enough indeed. Thank you for the update. The Venus straw man is unfortunate, but notice also NOAA’s matter-of-fact update to the background paragraphs I had quoted. Where it before said “there is no evidence that [CO2] is causing an increase in global temperatures” among other statements that counter the AGW theory, it now says:

    “Carbon dioxide has increased greatly in the atmosphere over the past 100 years. Although it comprises only 0.03% of the atmosphere, it has been linked to global warming.”

    Revisiting that thread on the other site I see that I can be a bit harsh (yes, an understatement), but from my very first comment there I was indiscriminately blasted by the AGW faithful (as noted in that thread, one of them had said that she hopes I “drown myself when the sea level increases”). Perhaps a fan of Dr. D in this WUWT thread. Quite tolerant of them, eh? So, I fight fire with fire there.

    I read through the thread again and, given the date, just a few weeks before Climategate broke, I must say a few of my remarks were prescient (please forgive the back-patting):

    “Soon enough the AGW house of cards will come crumbling down.”

    “The IPCC, Mann, Briffa et al have been trying to shore up the holes in the AGW dike, but there is only so much they can do. It’s going to burst, hopefully sooner rather than later.”

    “Well a funny thing happened on the way to Copenhagen.”

    “Looks like there’s a lot of trouble on the horizon for the AGW cult.”

    Good times, and as always, Cheers!

    Before I go, Dr. D, if you’re still out there, please do tell us what you meant with your comment as the host of this excellent site requested of you. To reiterate the request, what specific retorts or actions are you referring to?

  76. Philip Mulholland says April 17, 2011 at 12:57 am:

    “Here you are:- How to do it:-”

    Mr. Mulholland, thank you very much for the permalink tip. I obviously hadn’t thought of that but it will certainly come in handy in the future. Much appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to explain it. Cheers!

  77. @ Werner Brozek : Thank you also for the links. You people here at WUWT are an international treasure!

  78. This is an excellent idea to historically document the ramblings of the doom sayers.
    In the coming decades this will become a shame file for the politicians, scientists and all other useful idiots who pushed this disgraceful sham. Those in the education system brain washing young children and terrifying them, should end up the most shamed.

    Thank you Anthony.

  79. Miami Herald – July 5, 1989 – 2E SCIENCE

    GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the…

    Here’s Mr. Noel Brown:

    http://www.pace.edu/commencement/commencement-2003/honorary-degree-recipients-4/dr-noel-j-brown

  80. 2002 Coral Doomsday Claim is Falsified by Observational Data

    The Doomsday Claim: World’s Coral: 40% gone by 2010. “Across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts. It’s estimated that more than a quarter have been lost and that 40 per cent could be gone by 2010.”

    Doomsday Claim Validation/Falsification Test: Check the current amount of Coral in the world for 2011. If the coral has dropped by 40% or more or thereabouts the claim is validated and coral doomsday might have arrived, however if the level of coral in 2010 or after has not dropped as predicted the coral doomsday claim is falsified, null and void.

    Proof that Falsifies the Claimed Doomsday: “In 1997 the area of the world’s coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2 (reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/ccxb165016ma8792/ ). If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world’s coral reefs should be around 153,000km2. Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2 (reference: http://pdf.wri.org/factsheets/factsheet_reefs_main.pdf ). This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010.

    Conclusion Regarding The Doomsday Claim: The 40% of World’s Coral Gone by 2010 Doomsday Claim is hereby FALSIFIED as the evidence doesn’t support the doomsday claim. Obviously the authors of the doomsday claim did NOT comprehend what is actually going on in the objective reality of Nature with regards to Corals in the Earth’s oceans and how they grow and die or what impacts their life cycles. Clearly Nature had other plans. Clearly they need to learn more before forecasting another coral doomsday event.

    Reference & Claim Evidence Archive:

    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/archives/2002a_Monday22April2002.htm
    “Beautiful One Day
    Broadcast: 22/04/2002
    Reporter: Stephen McDonell
    Across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts. It’s estimated that more than a quarter have been lost and that 40 per cent could be gone by 2010.

    It’s almost unthinkable that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef – the world’s biggest coral edifice, 2000 kilometres long, home to 400 coral and 1500 fish species – could be headed the same way.

    But the pressure is on. No longer can Australians assume that the reef will be there for future generations to enjoy in all its current beauty and complexity.

    Human impact is closing in and there’s a burgeoning battle over conservation, livelihoods and, crucially, the science that tries to measure the risks to the reef.

    Four Corners explores the pressures on the reef from sugar, beef, shipping and fishing – and how these traditional industries are chafing against the multi-billion dollar tourism industry.

    Reporter Stephen McDonell tells how coral bleaching, driven by global warming, is wrecking reefs world-wide and how the Barrier Reef has, so far, emerged largely unscathed. It may not be so lucky in the years ahead.

    Then there’s a potential impact that no one in authority will acknowledge – oil. The Barrier Reef and its outskirts are thought to hold at least 5 billion barrels – Australia’s biggest reserve. The Government rejects any suggestion that the reef could be exploited for its oil, but exploration teams are quietly gathering data on what lies beneath the seabed.

    Stephen McDonell reports on the threats to one of the natural wonders of the world.

    “Beatiful One Day…” was first broadcast on ABC TV on Monday 22 April, 2002.”

    Doomsday Claim Analysis Credit: http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/past-alarm-worlds-coral-40-gone-by-2010.html

    Entry in Doomsday Claims Database by “pwl” aka Peter William Lount of http://PathsToKnowledge.net.

  81. Quis custoddiet ipos custodes says:
    April 17, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    The actual price on PV does not appear to be dropping from the site you listed. Taking away the CPI the price goes from $9.50/watt in 2007 to a whopping big savings of $.50/watt, coming in at $9.00/watt in 2011….

  82. Re Dr Robert Davidson’s comment at April 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm, I assumed he was being sarcastic (without a ‘sarc’ tag). Naive of me, I guess.

    Re Jimbo on April 17, 2011 at 4:50 am: Why should WUWT be as non-objective (and thereby anti-science) as the Warmist blogs? Besides, it would be fun to have an Alarmist Success page, which inevitably would be blank.

    /Mr Lynn

  83. PaulH says:
    April 17, 2011 at 9:45 am
    David, UK says:
    This raises an interesting question of how to rate a prediction that gives the date as too soon, but it happens much later on.

    It wasn’t me who said that, and indeed I replied to the person who did say that by telling him how wrong I thought he was. Please attribute that quote to the correct person.

    [Reply: Thank you for setting the record straight. ~dbs, mod.]

  84. Mr Lynn says:

    “To be fair, you should also invite Warmistas to post claims that have been verified, ‘Alarmist Success’, if you will.

    I don’t expect there will be many.”

    OK, that’s a challenge, here goes:

    1. Carbon dioxide levels will continue to rise,

    2. er……………

    Mmm, well I guess that’s it.

    Nevertheless it’s a good idea – the problem is the alarmists won’t want their BS ‘science’/forecasts open to rightful ridicule by those who can recognise a BSter.

  85. Peter Miller says:
    April 18, 2011 at 6:25 am

    OK, that’s a challenge, here goes:

    1. Carbon dioxide levels will continue to rise . . .

    See, there is one!

    But for how long? As the seas cool, they’ll absorb more CO2, and increased plant life will get the rest.

    Maybe we should have a Realist Success page, too!

    /Mr Lynn

  86. Hey, we might have to make up some claims to ridicule, or at least twist them a little ;-)

    As for warmist success stories:

    I’ll predict that 2011 – 2020 will be warmer than the previous decade. Also that sea levels will keep rising, and that arctic sea ice will continue its decline.

    We could also have a page for failed skeptical arguments. Hey, wait a minute, you can already find them at skeptical science.

  87. John Brookes says:

    “I’ll predict that 2011 – 2020 will be warmer than the previous decade. Also that sea levels will keep rising, and that arctic sea ice will continue its decline.”

    Which is entirely consistent with the warming trend since the LIA.

    And citing “skeptical” science? You mean the blog with the mendacious name run by a cartoonist? The blog that gets about 90% of its traffic from alarmist promoters commenting on WUWT? The blog that pretends to debunk skeptical arguments which, upon routine scrutiny, are themselves debunked?

    The fact remains that all the predictions of runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are baseless speculation at best, and outright lies at this point. Unless, of course, you can show us that mythical CO2-induced runaway global warming.

  88. Morning Flicka47-“The actual price on PV does not appear to be dropping from the site you listed. Taking away the CPI the price goes from $9.50/watt in 2007 to a whopping big savings of $.50/watt, coming in at $9.00/watt in 2011….”

    Sorry about not be a bit more precise in my earlier post on PV prices. I put my little 6.12 kW DC, 5.22 kW CEC AC rated system in 2006 after some $500 to 600 bills from PG&E in the summer of 2005. I paid out the door (on two roofs actually) before rebates and tax credits, $7.22 Watt per DC output ($8.46 Watt per AC output).

    I have been watching the price of panels come down over the years so I keep an eye on the hardware costs for a system comparable to mine. As PG&E has the most installed capacity of self generation I used the filters at the solar statistics site http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/quarterly_cost_per_watt/ as follows:
    Series 1 inputs; Greater then 10kW, All Sectors, PG&E
    Series 2 inputs; Less then 10kW, All Sectors, PG&E
    For the global filters is selected CEC AC, and cpi adjusted.

    With these inputs I got the following output costs;
    Series 1 Q1(2007)= $9.41 Watt, Q1 (2011)= $4.12 Watt
    Series 2 Q1 (2007)= 10.4 Watt, Q1 (2011)= $6.67 Watt

    Sorry for not being a bit more precise earlier. It will be interesting to see if the Series 2 data holds with the rather steep negative slope during the next quarter, or if it pops back up a bit.

    As an FYI a system comparable to the one I put in back in 2006 has seen a comparable drop in prices for the hardware as noted here- http://www.partsonsale.com/mitsubishi-6104-watt-solar-system-e.htm . It sounds like the folks down south (vs PG&E’s territory) can get a rather large rebate for going PV (on top of the federal tax credit). The rebate from the state is very low for PG&E customers currently.

  89. Quis custoddiet ipos custodes says:
    April 17, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    A couple of cost items for PV for those looking at what PV costs:

    The CEC has been keeping track of PV systems prices for a few years- you can sort the data base by ISO, location, system size, residential, commercial, year of installation, etc, as they were initially responsible for distributing the rebate for solar installations. As an FYI the CEC bases rebate amounts on the AC power (to take into account system specific panel and inverter efficiencies) not the DC (or STS ratings). It is interesting to note that the price for PV systems for commercial applications has been dropping big time over the last year.

    http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/quarterly_cost_per_watt/

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

    tbh, i would take any gov’t statistics on the price of solar with a grain of salt….pretty good chance there is some greenie there slanting the data, per usual…

  90. The Claim:

    Any and all population predictions made by the UN, World Bank, and US Census. Since many UNIPCC climate fearmongering is based on both total population and population distribution (see IPCC AR4), any error in population estimates will affect climate fear factors.

    The Evidence and the proof that they were wrong are both covered in the reference material at the following link, which compares all the predictions over time to the actual populations.

    The Results: Errors of 15% in 30 year projections. All projections show a positive bias, regardless of source, time of prediction or length of prediction. Projections in the 80’s and early 90’s appear to be worse than previous ones.

    The source is the National Academies Press, from the National Academy of Sciences.

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9828

    See specifically; Apendix B.

  91. Ed Scott says:

    What does the new Bolivian law mean? It means that tics that suck the blood, the choking sulphur pits of volcanic vents, the indestructible cockroach, the arid desert wastes and the bleak frigid spaces of the planet’s poles — everything from the locusts that despoil, to the great mountain ranges, the earth and all that is in it, are to have … rights. (About the other planets, Morales is silent.)
    ———————————————-
    Ed is a slightly more florid version of Willis. Give him a break.

    It might be useful to set halfway points in some of the predictions that float around – eg if a glacier was supposed to be gone by 2020, predicted in 1990, how is it travelling now? Predictions about droughts and floods in particular areas are a rich mine in that regard.

  92. Taphonomic wrote: May I suggest that you dedicate this project to the memory of Julian Simon?

    I would like to second the motion.

    Anthony wrote this:Solar costs to match coal by 2010
    http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=645
    Monday, 9 April 2007
    The cost of producing solar power will fall to that of coal-fired electricity by the end of the decade, according to a report by Europe’s Photon Consulting.

    That prediction, as quoted, is about costs, not prices. A problem with coal is that not all the costs are covered by the price (the well-known problem of external costs), and there are disagreements about the total costs of electricity from coal, and what should be included. People die from coal mining accidents; people die or become sick, and crops and livestock die or become sick, from the air and water pollution that result from burning coal. When PV cells are manufactured using electricity from coal, then those costs need to be added to the costs of the electricity from PV cells, which increases the difficulty of estimating and comparing all the total costs. A thorough discussion of all the external costs of coal might be worthwhile, if you really want to evaluate whether that prediction has been disconfirmed. For what it’s worth, that isn’t a prediction about climate, so you might keep it out of the inventory that you are creating of failed climate predictions.

  93. Jimbo says:
    Hi Mr Lynn,
    Show me a Warmist blog that does this?

    Jimbo, we all know WUWT is better than those. And really, it’s not like Anthony needs to hide THEIR data…

    As for R. Davidson – should such come to pass, I think the “consensus” crowd will find it not quite so easy as they believe to shut the rest of us up.

  94. Don’t forget the Gazillions of species extinctions caused by Global Warming.

    Unfortunately no-one can ever point to even one extinction caused by cAGW.

  95. Here’s a failed claim from 2002 broadcast on ABC (Australia)
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/archives/2002a_Monday22April2002.htm

    The Claim:

    “Across the world, coral reefs are turning into marine deserts. It’s estimated that more than a quarter have been lost and that 40 per cent could be gone by 2010. . .”

    “Reporter Stephen McDonell tells how coral bleaching, driven by global warming, is wrecking reefs world-wide and how the Barrier Reef has, so far, emerged largely unscathed. It may not be so lucky in the years ahead.”

    The Facts (reported in GWPF):
    http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/2839-the-endless-list-of-flase-alarms.html

    “In 1997 the area of the world’s coral reefs was estimated to be 255,000km2. Reference.
    If the prediction made on 4 Corners is to be believed, then in 2010 the area of the world’s coral reefs should be around 153,000km2.

    Instead, in 2011, one year on from that alarming forecast, we find that the global area of coral reef is estimated to be 249,713km2. Reference.

    This amounts to a change from 1997 figures of -2.1%. Given the unreported uncertainties, there has essentially been no change in global reef area over the past 10 years. Within error, essentially none of the reefs are missing in 2010. This ABC story turns out to be yet another beat up, designed to scare rather than inform.”

  96. Then ABC repeats and extends the claim on Feb. 24, 2011:

    “Study warns coral reefs could be gone by 2050”
    “The world’s coral reefs could be wiped out by 2050 unless urgent action is taken to stop threats posed to the “rainforests of the sea” by everything from overfishing to global warming, a report has warned.”

    “Warmer seas caused by global warming, ocean acidification blamed on carbon dioxide pollution, shipping, overfishing, coastal development and agricultural run-off all pose a threat to coral reefs, which hundreds of millions of people depend on for a living, says the report.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3147422.htm

  97. I fear the predictions will only be made farther into the future once this link becomes widely known. Also they will continue labelling floods and droughts etc as cagw-is-upon-us.

Comments are closed.