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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LarryT
April 16, 2011 9:23 pm

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

galileonardo
April 16, 2011 9:24 pm

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):
http://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.

Editor
April 16, 2011 9:44 pm

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

HaroldW
April 16, 2011 9:54 pm

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.)

galileonardo
April 16, 2011 10:07 pm

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!

jaymam
April 16, 2011 10:44 pm

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!

Pete H
April 16, 2011 11:02 pm

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

April 16, 2011 11:14 pm
Roy UK
April 16, 2011 11:18 pm

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.

son of mulder
April 17, 2011 12:12 am

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.

Jack Savage
April 17, 2011 12:41 am

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.

slow to follow
April 17, 2011 12:45 am

Bob Davidson – I think you mean “It’s a marketing issue”?

Philip Mulholland
April 17, 2011 12:57 am

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.

April 17, 2011 1:08 am

galileonardo says:
April 16, 2011 at 9:24 pm
…the Inconvenient Kids Science Web Page NOAA tried disappearing
http://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.

malcolm
April 17, 2011 1:09 am

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

mindert eiting
April 17, 2011 2:00 am

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.

View from the Solent
April 17, 2011 2:14 am

There is, of course, the infamous 2000 report in the UK Independent newspaper
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html .
Complete with the quote from CRU “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”
Proof that the claim was false? Where to start? Any report of snowbound UK during the latst winter will do. And the previous winter.

batheswithwhales
April 17, 2011 2:14 am

It is quite funny how they stuck to the 50-million claim up until last year:
“Climate change will displace 25-50 million people by next year. The situation will be the worst in the poorer countries,” says Koko Warner of the UN University’s Institute for Environment and Human Security.
hehe.
Source:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/climate-change-could-displace-25-million-by-2010-with-image_100203119.html

son of mulder
April 17, 2011 2:26 am

“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?

A Lovell
April 17, 2011 3:08 am

Earth Day 1970 is a rich source of failed predictions with a wealth of famous names. I often show this to people who are willing to listen. I’ve had a very good results with many who had accepted the AGW line, but hadn’t done any of their own research.
It’s always good for a giggle too!
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009

P Wilson
April 17, 2011 3:25 am

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)

Krishna Gans
April 17, 2011 3:33 am

Find here out of the cache the original files and maps of the UN prediction, with German comments

Joe Lalonde
April 17, 2011 3:36 am

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.

Rick Bradford
April 17, 2011 3:41 am

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

Verified by MonsterInsights