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://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.
Prince Charles: We Have Just Eighteen Months to Stop Climate Change Disaster
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/05/19/prince-charles-we-have-just-eighteen-months-to-stop-climate-change-disaster/
Perhaps links to InTrade or other predictions markets for selected forecasts? It would be interesting to see how well those do, too.
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?
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!
@ur momisugly Jimbo : Thanks for the links!
@ur momisugly Werner Brozek : Thank you also for the links. You people here at WUWT are an international treasure!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/18/2020.alokjha
“By 2020, Britain’s green and pleasant land will also be one of palm trees and pomegranates.”
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.
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
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.
“2002 Coral Doomsday Claim is Falsified by Observational Data” in article format for easy reference:
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2011/04/17/2002-coral-doomsday-claim-is-falsified-by-observational-data/
It appears others are doing similar projects. But his is funnier….at least, as long as most of the predictions don’t really happen…
http://www.xkcd.com/
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….
Anthony,
this failed prediction about loss of Coral Reefs is linked on Bishop Hill
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2011/04/past-alarm-worlds-coral-40-gone-by-2010.html
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
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.]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Ahh yes, Smokey, the little ice age. You’ll find that at skeptical science too……
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…
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.
Very apropos, and I reckon it’s possible the artist has seen this thread, just too much of a coincidence.
http://xkcd.com/887/