Quote of the week, McKibben calls for a 'climate strike' while an MSNBC poll goes horribly wrong

Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?

What were they predicting 25 years ago? Has it happened?

The result of that poll will be taken seriously at MSNBC. I’m sure they are trying figure out why their ratings have been so poor lately, and they want to know where their viewers stand on this question. Now they know.
I’ll bet they start changing their tune at MSNBC with respect to climate alarmism, their ratings and revenue are at stake. Nothing like good ol’ money to cause a news outlet to make some changes.

Pete Brown said “Does the tick in the chart mean that most people are answering in the affirmative?”
There’s always a tick at that position on the circle. Users can click on each section of the circle in turn. The section goes yellow and a pop-up box indicates what it means and how many voted for it. Right now the Yes vote is 24% (995 votes), No 73% (2990), Not Sure 2% (95).

From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.

There is nothing wrong whit climate science its the pseudo science you call climate science wits is wrong.
Your problem is not the number of reports but what is in it. People tent to stop believing if the things you tell are wrong. And indeed all reports you make are wrong so instead of complaining about us not believing better start making reports in line whit the real world.

TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.
Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.

I have to agree. If they stop the rampant alarmism until can verify the next 25 years of predictions, I’ll be happy.
If it is anything like as good as the last 25 years of predictions, my prediction is there’ll be no more predictions. But that is just a prediction, of course.

To be honest, if there were no climate science at all the world would be an infinitely better place.
The poll stands at yes=1005, no=3252, so the yes vote has just under 24%
It’s good to see the sceptics have a strong lead, but I still feel sad that around a quarter of the people have been so badly misled. But what can you do if even the President of the United States is so delusional that he thinks global warming is actually accelerating?
Chris

jones says:
” …would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).”
Already done :
Updated list of things “caused by global warming”:
http://linkis.com/wp.me/uQESG
note: This has been going on for so long now that some of the links are dead.

Once GetUp! in Australia get wind of this, the Yes vote will jump by about 100.

“…until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more”
So until we bow to your dictates on energy policy, based on corrupt science, lies and criminal activity, you’re going to stop producing corrupt science?
NO PROBLEM GUYS. We’re right behind you.
BTW do we need to contribute to a strike fund or do you count on still getting 24 billion dollars per year in funding while producing nothing of value, as you have been doing for the last 25 years?

The comments on the MSNBC page meet both meanings of ‘hysterical’

Interestingly the 25% that believe that climate change is a threat to them is similar to the Pew Poll numbers of those “extremely worried” about climate change. Sounds like Bill McKibben is filled with recursive fury.

Go and vote.

” maybe it’s just time to just give up.”
As long as the tap of public moneys is still running flat out, thats never going to happen.

The members this new movement will come to be known as the “climate trappists”.

McKribben still doesn’t get it. These “reports” have nothing to do with anything other than generating income for those issuing the report.
Always remember these immortal words: “Further research is needed”

Does that mean we won’t have any climate as usual, in the UK, while the strike lasts; can you let us have a date so I can book my holidays!

I agree that they should go on strike. It’s their sacrosanct right written in any democratic constitution, as long as they don’t get paid for the duration of their strike. Furthermore I hope that their days on strike would be many; many as in ‘forever’.

@Peter Miller
April 2, 2014 at 1:19 am
Great observations! You forgot to add:
vii) Papers where the main content and research are completely divorced from the abstract and conclusions.
This seems to be a common theme in a deluge of worthwhile and worthless scientific papers that shoehorn in Climate Change as a grant-seeking afterthought..

I’d love ALL climate scientists to go on strike. They might find that the world keeps running and no one notices. Or gives a …..
Prehaps the phrase “This is the sort of weather we should expect from climate change” should go in the bin.
Its doing my head in. Heard it this morning in the UK about our little pollution problem were having….

ozspeaksup says: ….
I must say, I have to agree with Rod where he says ‘I dont think’ and a couple of sentences later where he reinforces the statement,

I really don’t get it! Or I must be really stupid the poll chart above is saying that 72% believe climate change IS a threat to their lives!!!

Ok I did not see the bottom line explanation. The tick is very confusing however LOL

Mark Hladik says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
Try these links (they all work for me).
http://linkis.com/wp.me/uQESG
http://quixoteslaststand.com/
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Anyone else having problems?

Mark Hladik says:
April 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
Could not make your link to the ‘list of things caused by global warming’ work.
If all else fails, try this:
http://quixoteslaststand.com/?s=things+caused+by&submit=Search
then click on the first link returned.

The Tick represents your vote, I suspect.

McKibben’s article on CP is truly illuminating – I suggest everyone read it! I found that, just like him, I was crying by the end – but with tears of laughter that were almost impossible to stifle!!! When he gets to the part where he and his followers are in a church in Copenhagen, watching the Holy bits of Coral and the Withered Ears of Corn being paraded down to the altar in some bizarre parody of the sacrament (I’m not kidding, read it!) I realize that he’s not even trying to hide the fact anymore that this movement has become a bizarre religious cult with its own ceremonies and dogma.
No surprise when he calls for preachers to speak on his behalf this from the pulpit!!! That’s really all he’s got left, isn’t it???

p.s. I realize that the weepy Bill article is from 2009; however, this is the first time I’ve ever made myself read it all the way through. That should never be forgotten, and my thanks for reposting the link!

This morning the link worked from my ipad and the total no vote was 79%

The web page does not allow me to vote. I selected “NO” and then clicked on “Cast your vote” and I get an error message: “please make an answer selection to cast your vote.” Are they not allowing “NO” votes anymore?

Sasha says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:40 am
jones says:
” …would you please please happen to have one of those lovely little lists of what predictions were extruded by this crowd 25 years ago? (for 25 years time if you get me?).”
Already done :
Updated list of things “caused by global warming”:

The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.

I see no insects in this graphic!

Will the strikes include not attending multi-million dollar junkets to the worlds tropical resorts?

Striking workers don’t get paid.
Not going to happen.

When an English major speaks of science you have to listen.

please go on a permanent strike, bill. hopefully, your MSM friends will come out in solidarity with you. especially bloomberg & reuters point carbon, who are the “analysts” referred to in the following, & whose “predictions” would seem to be as woeful as the IPCC’s:
2 April: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: EU Carbon Pares Gains as Analysts Revise 2013 Emissions Estimate
Carbon permits pared gains as analysts said European Union data showed emissions from factories and power stations probably fell more than their predictions made earlier today…
Emissions in the EU’s carbon market fell 3 percent to 4.2 percent last year on a like-for-like basis from 2012, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which earlier estimated a drop of 1.6 percent. Point Carbon, a unit of Thomson Reuters Corp., revised its estimate to a 3.1 percent drop from a fall of 1.6 percent earlier today…
Last year’s fall in emissions is close to the median forecast for a 3.8 percent decline by seven analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News…
The European Commission data show “several installations increased their covered emissions scope between 2012 and 2013,” New Energy said in an e-mailed statement. “This is likely due to the inclusion of new sectors and gases, or an aggregation of previously separate installations into single ones. This appears to particularly affect steel, refining and combustion installations.” ….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/eu-carbon-rises-after-2013-emissions-fell-slower-than-expected.html

I think they should go on a hunger strike and not eat until the whole world admits they’re right (no matter the facts) OR until global warming is proved to occur beyond a scientific reasonable doubt.
Ol’ Al and Michael could lose a few pounds.

That’s an outstanding idea. Go on strike, please.
Don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

It’s up to 81% no. I added my tiny sliver to the result.
I vote yes on the strike, as well. Actually, I don’t care if climate scientists keep working and even keep their funding. I just want them out of politics, I want to see statistical competence in the field, and I want uncertainty to be clearly explicated instead of presenting paper after paper containing Bayesian arguments with catastrophic warming (predicted by the GCMs) as a near-certain Bayesian prior. IF global warming proceeds at the pace predicted by GCMs (which we consider “very likely” because we are told that they are very reliable), THEN baby seals will perish. If we simply succeeded in getting the words “very likely” changed to “possible”, or “possible, but unlikely” what a difference it would make!
rgb

hovered at 82% then went back one.

He [Bill McKibben] writes:
So at this point it’s absurd to keep asking the scientific community to churn out more reports. In fact, it might almost be more useful if they went on strike: until you pay attention to what we’ve already told you, we won’t be telling you more. Work with what you’ve got. We’re a quarter-century ahead – when you deal with the trouble we’ve already described then we’ll tell you what’s coming next.

– – – – – – – – –
Bill McKibben,
I strongly support your idea of a strike by all the so-called CAGW ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists you are referring to!!!! Please push your strike idea into reality!!!!
Then, the skeptics in the climate science dialog will have much more grant money and space available in journals.
John

Im not sure what the point of the polls are, they always come out on the no side even when they try a phycological trick of putting a tick on the chart to try and signify this is how many are saying yes.
How many more do they need to do.

as in the question is ” do you see you life threatened by ……….” on the main chart with the yellow tick as in saying yes .
oh the little tricks they play to try and massage the figures upwards for a yes.

I sorta fudged on the poll. Climate change is a threat to my health and well-being because politicians are using it as an excuse to pillage my bank account and, in general, make my life more miserable.

I just voted at the poll.
It says 82% of votes are NO to climate threat.
John

Jeff Alberts says:
The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.
OK. Hang on to your hat!
The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107:
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)
1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006
****
2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.
****
3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.
****
4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007
****
5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.
****
6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.
****
7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007
****
8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010
9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010
****
10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000
****
11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000
****
12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”
3Sat, 26 June 2003
****
13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)
****
14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007
****
15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”
and
“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002
****
16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006
****
17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010
****
18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007
****
19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007
****
20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006
****
21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007
****
22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007
****
23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009
****
24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004
****
25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006
****
26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006
****
27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006
****
28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.
****
29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010
****
30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001
****
31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010
****
32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.
****
33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.
****
34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999
****
35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000
****
36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004
****
37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999
****
38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000
****
39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005
*****
40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000
****
41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001
****
42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001
****
43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007
****
44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007
****
45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007
****
46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008
****
47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007
****
48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007
****
49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009
****
50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009
****
51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]
****
52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.
****
53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and
“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004
****
54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999
****
55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005
****
56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005
****
57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008
****
58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
Guardian, 14 February 2004
[4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]
****
59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004
****
60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
Spiegel, 3 June 2006
[The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]
****
61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe
Reuters, Nov 09, 2012
FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.
“The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”
****
62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 August 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/26/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
****
63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)
“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
****
64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
Telegraph December 14, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-1659-spells-global-doom.html
****
65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
BBCs Climate Change Experiment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml
****
66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
Impacts of climate change in Belgium
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.
****
68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/
****
69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007
****
70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland
****
71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/research.sciencenews
****
72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/british-seasons-start-to-shift-6358532.html
****
73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.
****
74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
****
75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”
****
76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”
****
77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]
****
78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”
****
79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
****
80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
****
81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”
****
82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”
****
83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”
****
84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”
****
85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.
****
86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”
****
87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”
—****
88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”
****
89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”
****
90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”
****
91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”
****
92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
****
93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”
****
94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”
****
95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”
****
96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”
****
97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”
****
98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”
****
99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”
****
100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”
****
101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
[Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]
****
102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”
****
103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”
****
104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]
****
105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”
****
106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
****
107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

Sasha’s comment is holding true – I heard a few blips abt this in the mainstream media – a teaser headline to a national story on the local news site, nothing in the local news, some notice at the mainstream media news sites, and nothing else.
The rock hit the water, made a few ripples, sunk, and the ripples faded away pretty quickly.

Wow it really does look like most ordinary folk are getting sick and tired of AGW BS. The GOP should make this a major agenda (anti AGW) for the next election they may garner a lot more votes that they might think! BTW you have to click on the GRAPHIC ITSELF toi see the results.

klem says: “…I’ll bet they start changing their tune at MSNBC with respect to climate alarmism, their ratings and revenue are at stake. Nothing like good ol’ money to cause a news outlet to make some changes.”
No, they’ll just change the numbers, and all is good. Remember, this is Post-Normal logic they’re using.
As of now, it’s 82% No, with 7083 total votes.

Oh, what a GREAT idea!
Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. Delightful!

I thought that I would behave like a progressive and record my vote 100 times or until my iPad ran out of battery power. You can imagine my surprise when I was only allowed to vote once ( on the iPad smile. This poll might be legitimate; however, I appreciate the post that humorously concluded that the results would state that “91% believe that global warming is a threat to our civilization”. I hope that this CAGW tripe will forever discredit the UN.
On another subject, do you think that the US will veto a UN vote to declare Palestine a state?

Climate science community go on strike?? A bunch of rent-seeking, talentless academics who are very, very lucky to score the only gig they have?
I’d enjoy it, as well as the rest of us, but don’t hold your breath. In true “end of the world” quasi-religion mode, they will grow ever more shrill with their doom & gloom before exploding, Monty Python-style. I’d buy tickets to that last bit.

Maybe the public just isn’t buying it any more after the failed forecasts, the 50million climate refugees that didn’t happen, the extinctions that didn’t happen, the no Arctic ice that didn’t happen, the flooded cities and coastlines that didn’t happen etc etc etc…

Up to 83% negative on the poll! And the comments are good too.

Greg says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:28 am
TC says: From the graphic, the Yes vote appears to be represented by the large section containing the tick – but it’s not. Seems designed to mislead to me.
Very good point ! A tick sign is usually used to indicate affirmation yet that 74% segment is the NO votes. Very misleading.
========================================================================
Actually, since you have to vote to get to the results as far as I could tell, I assume the check mark indicates the section that represents the way the user voted..
PS No is up to 83%

Climate scientists going on strike is the best idea Bill McKibben will ever have.
Thirty years would seem like an appropriate length of time……

Before this WUWT post I had already registered my vote. Quite a shocking result! This is why they imagine there is a well funded opposition. There isn’t, people have had enough of the garbage and scare mongering.

If the results were reversed, this poll would be touted very loudly by the MSM, progressive politicians and all the warmist sites. They way it stands now, you will not hear a peep from any of them.

There has already been a strike by a small core group of so-called climate ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists in this 21st century. Those scientists, of whom Michael Mann (PSU) seems to be typical and whom also seems to be the unofficial leader, have been on strike for ~15 years to prevent providing their published work product info. The info they have not provided is: specific used data, exact detailed methodology, function actual code, all work related emails and overall correspondence.
Consider that without them supplying such info on their published work product then they have not actually been participating in and party to any scientific process or within professional integrity guidelines. Thus, their work cannot be yet included in the domain of science. Their successful strike to produce things not within the domain of science continues.
What Mr McKibben is in effect asking for with his strike call is for all other ‘consensus’ / ‘settled science’ scientists to join Michael Mann and the small core group of his associates on their ongoing ~15 years strike where they have failed to produce both within the formal domain of science and also failed within the code of professional scientific behavior.
John

The game is not going my way, I’m gonna take my ball home, and won’t everyone be sorry then.
Sorry if this is redundant.

83% “no”.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-how-should-we-address-climate-change
this is one they will be touting.

I just voted and the tally was 9,056 votes.
No – 7,528 (83%)
Yes – 1,402 (15%)
I am not sure – 126 (1%)

i just tried to vote for the first time but, no matter how many times i choose “no” & click to vote, i’m told i haven’t made a choice. obviously i haven’t made the “right” choice, but….

McKibbon would LOVE a “climate strike” because the more research that comes in the worse the entire AGW hypothesis is looking.

Wait, one of the pollsters at MSNBC, I think his name was Chad, said they are going into the back server room to check the mouse position records associated with clicks. Voters must have been confused about where to click, particularly the ones living in Florida. You can be sure they will come back with the correct results shortly. It doesn’t matter how many times they have to go back there, you can be sure they will count every click.

I think it’s likely the climate psychics drummed up the troops to astroturf that poll, too.
Would be funny if the no votes do get to 97%. It would be a tipping point for mockery.

Ah, no kidding. Well, that still sucks. Why not just provide a legend? Are these people idiots?
Don’t answer that.
I commented directly in the discussion following to that effect. Grrrr.
rgb

Maybe its just time to just give.
They never will, to many folks have wallets to fill.From researchers to civic bureaucracies . Besides its becoming the UN’s favourite Religion besides Islam.
To many governments see this as a reason to pillage the middle class for tax dollars to feed themselves. True or false, they couldn’t give a hoot. Its the money they want.
The UN sees it as Marxism in action by transferring wealth from those Nations who produce it. To those who don’t or ever will, from religious to medieval cultural practices that bring poverty.
This has nothing to do with science & all to do with socialism along with a pseudo-science of climatology. Trying to squeeze the World for funds with a bogus theory.

Hey, I’d vote for the scientists McKibben means going on strike (given the context he means the alarmists) – they’d shut up. 😉
Others would probably get more money for real research, at least they’d be able to work in peace to develop predictive methods.

Chris Wright says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:26 am
To be honest, if there were no climate science at all the world would be an infinitely better place…
But what can you do if even the President of the United States is so delusional that he thinks global warming is actually accelerating?
Chris
———————————–
Chris, you know damn good and well that the power brokers not only don’t believe their lies they don’t care as long as you believe them.
Our POTUS doesn’t believe in CAGW although he is trying to help build a crisis that he can “keep from going to waste.” I think these are Chicago’s Godfather’s words?
They’re not stupid…only criminal.
cn

There going to stop wasting money by producing even more flawed and biased studies.
There’s a downside here?

The poll is still open on April 9th, It is now 12K and the vote is 82% NO! (9,976 votes)