From climatechangepredictions.org, where the proprietor writes:
I’ve started a website with the idea of making it entertaining as well as informative. The website presents global warming predictions that have been made over the past 40 or so years, especially predictions that are either contradictory or alternatively plainly ridiculous and thus amusing.
From the About Page:
Whatever your opinion, climate change is one of the most prominent issues of the times.
It relates to the well being of the planet and its occupants. At the same time it incurs the expenditure of billions of dollars and much of it comes from public money.
We are a small group who have followed the global warming/ climate change issue for some years. Initially we didn’t know which version was correct but we noticed several things. One was the frequent use of predictions, often scary, that seemed on the surface to be believable. We wondered whether anyone ever went back to see if the predictions turned out to be true.
This blog presents predictions that have been made over the past 40 years or so and we leave it to you to make up your own mind about them.
The blog commenced towards the end of 2014 and as it develops we will be continually adding new material and making changes to the layout. At present we plan to add about half a dozen new posts each week.
Typo in the link http://climatechangepredictions.org/
Darn. Your correction came in before I hit the Post button. Missed my chance to be first.
And this must be the best page!
http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/invasion
This one is pretty damn funny too:
http://climatechangepredictions.org/category/hardest_hit
Needs source links.
Missing c in the middle, should be climatechangepredictions.org.
The correct link is http://climatechangepredictions.org
Seriously ??????
Man, I hope have one heck of a lot of web allocation !!! 🙂
Googling ‘warmlist’ gives you a huge and more concise version!
Plenty of material here (although not up to date). http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Not necessary fail but eye opening claims. There are so many failed claims it’s difficult to know where to start. The following dedicated page has been at it for years and is the best so far. How many more years does the IPCC require before it raises the red flag?
C3: Failed Predictions: Model/Human
http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/
Some more
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/tag/predictions-that-failed/
This list of fail from the climastrologists focuses on warmer northern hemisphere winters and less snow.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/#sthash.p0T72kwJ.dpbs
This list means everything to everyone. Warmist or sceptic created by me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/
“How many more years does the IPCC require before it raises the red flag?”
They have been raising the red flag for years. That is the entire point of this scam, to bring us all under one big red flag.
There is one small issue with this new site. The first 5 pages I have taken a look at don’t link to the original source or other source. They will be accused over time of making stuff up. Image captures should be considered.
The new site should also take advantage of http://archive.today in case pages go astray. 😉 Another place worth looking at (not always apparent in general search engines) are the newspaper archives and scholar. i often retrieve ‘disappeared’ pages on the Wayback Machine.
I agree with your first point at least.
This is a good list too.
http://quixoteslaststand.com/2014/03/08/updated-list-of-things-caused-by-global-warming/
That list is from the Warm List already mentioned above.
For reasons of balance all the failed cooling predictions ought to be included, too 🙂
For example: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.html
Village, it really does not matter what sceptics fail to do. We are not planning for the global re-organisations of the world’s energy infrastructure AND we were content that the climate changes. Warmist were not.
Also, Jimbo, what alarmist blog tries to be ‘balanced’? That’s what skeptics do. Alarmists emit one-sided propaganda.
Another also.
The predictions that contradict each other.
If I bet that #1 will score more points but my buddy bets on #2, does that mean either of us is an expert on the sport? No.
It’s not uncommon in this or any other PR game for opposing outcomes from a cause or event to be predicted.
Whichever prediction is closest to the actual outcome is heralded as “proof” of “the cause” and the justification for continuing in the desired political direction.
You don’t agree?
What did Hansen say would happen if CO2 increased?
Did it?
Who still supports the Hockey Stick, other than out some sense of obligation or defending Mann to prevent embarrassment to “the cause”?
This is not an easy thing to do well. Bon courage !!
Is there a list of the predictions that have come true? One would think that at least some must have since so many, often contradictory, predictions have been made.
Could the resident warmists please respond?
No need, all their predictions will come true, this has been voted over and decided with a 97% majority.
And don’t forget the science is settled.
Sorry Brute, they’re still all too busy posting alarming comments over at The Telegraph. Sunday’s excellent article by Christopher Booker is just short of 22,000 comments. The post has got legs, way to go Chris!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Predictions that are/were true?
Well, there is that one that said, “the climate would change”.
And, as I pointed out elsewhere on WUWT, the warmists predicted that England would have the climate of Southern Spain. If current trends continue, this will be true. Southern Spain is damned cold at the moment.
In 3 years time IPCC would be 30 years old. Interestingly the one failure which Warmists like to point to about the IPCC is the failure to project the observed rate of Arctic sea ice extent decline (now stuttering). Wadhams was like a man on meth, raging and frothing at the mouth about this. He has gone relatively quiet this year and changed his ‘ice-free’ prediction. Otherwise I cannot find a single correct prediction from the IPCC. [Please on one point me to weather events and speculative drivel].
Correction:
[Please no one point me to weather events and speculative drivel].
They correctly predicted their funding would increase if they made things sound scary.
So scary they took oil money too. LOL.
This is just the know tip of the ice-berg.
Over the last year or so I have asked this following question a couple of times on WUWT, a couple of times on Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc”where I would have expected a sure fire answer.
And a couple of times on “Jo Nova’s” site.
The only answer I have so far received that is relevant is “it sells newspapers”.
Question;
After 25 years of very expensive, ever expansive publicly funded climate research, could somebody somewhere please point out one single example where Climate Science as currently practiced has been of ANY visible, perceivable and useful and useable and proven benefit at any level to our national and global societies and industries ?
Children won’t know what snow is. Even if we have to force them. Oh dear Mr. Viner.
I fixed the link guys. I noticed it too.
This will a blog that I shall follow with great interest.
Great blog, what I miss though is links to the quoted predictions, not just references, and also some comments on each case.
Yep – having links to the excerpts quoted would be good. Bit I like the site – especially where we see two stories like ‘Less Coral Reefs’ and ‘More Coral Reefs’ next to each other, perfectly illustrating the absolute nonsense of all and any such doomsday CAGW claims. The site is well worth a visit.
I agree. The “have it both ways” section is the best. The contradictions are hilarious.
In order for the site to be both amusing and informative, not only faulty predictions must be presented. All science contain errors. They key question is how many of the predictions that are right or wrong and if we got the tools needed to verify the predictions.
Thanks for the link to the new site.
The fact that the alarmists have been consistantly wrong on all their predictions for decades should tell the rational human that they don’t know what they are talking about. They are wrong. Their theories have failed. Alas, modern grant-seekers love propaganda more than truth it looks like.
While it is not a welcome opinion here, I think the evidence is overwhelming that CO2 has no net warming effect at all. I further think that today’s climate “science” really does not have a clue as to how our climate really works. It is a science that is young and just begining its journey toward predictive knowlege.
I commend your efforts and will support your site, however, if your aim is to be entertaining as well as informative, you may have to do better than just the “written word” to capture the attention of the under 30’s. I work in retail and we have a philosophy re attracting customers. Want, need, and “shiny things”. You are indeed missing some big shiny things on your site. May I suggest pictures, video, and or cartoons, and plenty of satire? Look forward to seeing more. Ps here is what one on my under 30 friends thinks is amusing re CC. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=589383337864930&pnref=story. Good luck.
As always, our future lies with the young.
“As always, our future lies with the young.”
Now that is depressing. 🙁
Our future may be with the young, but their future is with us. I’m not in much of a mood to be merciful.
Come on Mark watch the vid it IS funny and there is hope in that alone!
I have not yet lost faith. Not all kids have been indoctrinated. Not all indoctrinated kids will remain indoctrinated. Youthful rebellion might just save Western prosperity and Liberty.
I think that’s happened before.
Thanks just, thank god for that kind of humor we all need a laugh!
The sad part. Most of the studies were probably paid for by fleecing tax payers.
I like it.
Also how about North Atlantic becoming less salty
-Michael Schirber, LiveScience, June 29, 2005
….and also the North Atlantic becoming more salty…
– Catherine Brahic, New Scientist, August 23, 2007
Both from Jimbo at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/#more-37187
Also…
Global warming ‘will make our winters colder, Independent 27 OCT 2014
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-will-make-our-winters-colder-9819825.html
..and at the same time…
Global Warming Will Lead to Warmer Winters, Study Says
Guardian Liberty Voice 26Oct2014
http://guardianlv.com/2014/10/global-warming-will-lead-to-warmer-winters-study-says/#vtSWTChi8xARKBqH.99
It looks that they can’t lose.
There must be pages worth of material from the ski industry!
Some predictions have yet to pan out, but in the meantime they tell us more snow is caused by global warming too.
Here is something from the paper that told us snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.
Indpendent – 20 January, 2015
“Great conditions in Scotland, Scandinavia and Canada: Snow report “
It may be interesting to have a website illustrating the predictions which have been proved correct to ensure we have a balanced debate in an area bedevilled with bias on one side or the other.
Please provide an example of a correct warmist prediction or verified proof that is not a model or manipulated data.
Fair enough Gareth, I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s not going to be a big site is it? Perhaps a blank page?
I don’t know about you, but I can’t think of anything of significance that they have actually got right. The global warming scare took hold during a period when the world was warming at the end of the 20th century. So that’s not a prediction, more an acknowledgement of what was already happening. Before that, when the world was cooling, a new ice age was predicted.
The ‘pause’ in warming after 1998 was not predicted either, on the contrary, warming was supposed to accelerate.
If one is to participate in a “balanced debate” where the topic is tautological, then both sides will always be correct and there can be no debate.
Gareth, have noticed how EASY it is to list their failures – lots and lots of examples. Yet Warmists have to struggle to find a handful. THERE IS YOUR HINT MY FRIEND. Come to the sceptic side. You will feel liberated.
It would, were there any to post.
Without knowing it Gareth has just exposed the underbelly of CAGW. I want to see a list of observed predictions that CAGW has got right that is not contradicted by an earlier prediction. For example colder winters has been contradicted by the earlier warmer winter predictions. Yeah, I know that scientific theories can change but CAGW will claim victory if we get warmer winters too!!!! Climastrology at it’s finest.
Climate change will ‘CAUSE huge increase in MURDER, ROBBERY and RAPE’
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/24/climate_change_will_cause_huge_increase_in_murder_robbery_and_rape/
By the way, climate change also causes prostitution
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/01/climate_change_causes_prostitution/
Is there anything bad it doesn’t cause?
“Global Warming stole my car”
That’s rich.
Global warming causes psychological damage. Or is it the other way around?
Here in Canada, the government-run CBC doesn’t believe the number of rapes are falling, and blames it on undereporting. Maybe the victims are too worried about climate change to report?
If they add in the earlier failed predictions, often from the same culprits, about global cooling then they’ll have a job for life.
Sounds a lot like Tony’s http://climatedenier.me/
Awfully entertaning, if you don’t think how many have been believing that stuff. I was as stupid as willing to pay Al Gore some money to see his movie.
No more ‘trust me’. Show me.
Along with the South Sea Bubble and Tulip Futures, this period will be reviewed by historians as the Great Green Global Warming Scam…
Pointing out that climate hypesters are wrong in every prediction they make somehow makes no impact on the true believers. It is similar to Brian Williams: People have been pointing out that he was dishonest for years. But they were not the “right” people to listen to on that topic.
Just went to a “progressive” relative’s birthday party and mentioned that coffee was on sale at 2 different stores. I was promptly told that the price would soon jump because Global Warming was causing a disease outbreak on coffee plantations, thus wreaking havoc on “fair trade” coffee system, inflating prices. I made a mild statement of doubt and the yelling commenced… ugly scene.
Some people are just in your life.
“Yelling commenced.” Some emotionally-invested people just insist that you join them in their delusions or else, boy, you’ll be sorry!
Tell him to put his money where his mouth is: second mortgage on the house, put it all in coffee futures. He’ll be rich, rich I tell ya
How about a category for disappearing polar sea ice?
I hope that alongside the failed predictions a record of harsh things said about anyone not supporting the CAGW line. A book will need to be written to expose the people and especially the news people.
Woops. Never mind. I just looked at the site and found a category called Woe to thee, that does what I suggested.
Indeed. I love this one:
“Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices. They broke the climate. Why should the rest of us have to pay for it?”
Steve Zwick, Forbes.com, 19 Apr 2012”
Very confusing: do the funders of Deep Green, who have ocean-front properties, get a choice of their political enemies’ higher ground places, or do those places go to refugees, and then the rich Greens won’t have to mix with the great unwashed?
Or am I expecting consistency of thought from people who don’t think much at all anyway?
Caligulajones,
The Forbes site has about a half dozen insane commenters like that. Anyone inclined to inform them of reality and facts can go here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you
[To comment, click on “Comment now”, then under ‘Comments’, click on “Expand All Comments”.]
Anyone who thinks that comments here are out of line should read some of the ones on Forbes, from the alarmist haters. You will quickly see how polite this site is.
In 1884 a religious leader using clues from biblical writings predicted the exact date for the end of the world. Needless to say it didn’t happen, but no problem, must have been a calculation error; math was a bit off, a slipped a decimal or something. Re-calculated still no go. That that early group deeply concerned with doomsday grew to be the Seventh-day Adventists in Christ, with about 19 million members. I do not think doomsday predictions are core to their beliefs any longer but it did help the churches founding.
The point being doomsday predictions are an effective tool in recruiting and organizing and do not require accuracy.
Climatechangepredictions.org provides a valuable service in documenting the poor climate forecast track record. It also shows the stupidity and failure of predictions are irrelevant to true believers since they continue to drive public policy regardless.
What drives true believers is not evidence, it never has been. It is the principles. In the case of climate it is “save the planet”, “Make the earth a safe place for our kids”, and of course “Stop the Evil!”. The evil in this case being fossil fuels and its evil step child CO2.
You cannot dissuade climate change believers from their beliefs, the best you can do is supersede their beliefs with higher beliefs. Kind of like replacing the vengeful, fearful God of the old testament with the forgiving compassionate God of the New.
It seems strange to talk of belief and religion on a science blog, but in terms of Climate Change it is relevant.
Maybe we could divert them to the UFO,alien or Bigfoot crowd.
Alx you are reminding us of the nature of predictions, hope and expectations. I believe the group to which you refer is the “Witnesses” also known by two other names. The Adventists (I am going by what is in the introduction of their Bible) still agree the date is 1844. They both come from the Millerites – followers of William Miller – he of the Great Disappointment – who was the loudest voice on the topic in the period 1830-1850. He based his prediction on the Book of Daniel, and the confirmation by Jesus in the New Testament that it was the correct place to find ‘time of His return’.
The pattern of using the information available, the predictions based on that information as understood by the reader, the apparent failures, the propping up of the spirit and in some cases the issuing of new predictions, repeats itself in the global warming movement. It will break into ‘churches’ of belief with some saying the warming is being accumulated, others saying we have to reassesses, still others saying we must recalculate based on all new information, even if surprising and unexpected.
The sceptics fall into the latter category. They continually check their information and the usefulness of information. Sometimes there are surprises in both directions. It’s OK. Just keep on keeping on, eyes open, face front.
(Mods! Feel free to delete if you deem it a potential derailment.)
Jesus said that no man knows the times that The Father has kept in in own power (or authority).
If no man knows then no man knows. If a man claims to know, he is mistaken at best.
True, it does say in Thessalonians that they were not in darkness that that day should overtake them as a thief but that is not referring to them knowing the when but rather that it would not be a bad event for them.
(End of Sermon 😎
(Mods! I meant it when I said, “Feel free to delete if you deem it a potential derailment.” I won’t be offended or feel “censored”.)
“The evil in this case being fossil fuels and its evil step child CO2.”
That is the mask for their belief that the true evil that must be stopped, capitalism.
I’ve kept my own list for quick reference for sometime now
http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm
Is being a Jezebel a man thing? I notice that all the little figures in the cartoon are men,?
Oddly its ‘ability’ to never be wrong , because it can claim anything is a sign of AGW and that although what its forecast has not happened to date there is always the possibility it will in the future , which means that in pratice this about as much to do science has Astrology, is actual a strength in the case where the idea is not that you can prove your right but that others have to prove your wrong .
Because if you make a wide enough range of claims you got a good chance one will come true and if you make a limited range of claims and none come off you can say ‘not yet but it will’
Heads you lose , tails I win is the standard approach within climate ‘science’ therefore there are no failed claims merely ones that have ‘not yet’ been achieved or ones that have been ‘partly’ achieved. To understand how this works stop thinking science and start thinking religion.
“It WILL happen in 1997 …. GREENHOUSE!”
Ah, the late Dakota James really had a way of spinning a yarn.
To give fair credit and go open kimono … young impressionable newly minted adult (= me) actually believed it. After all, it aligned with crud I was hearing in certain quarters and even in a few early examples of brainwashing classes a few years prior at uni.
Ha ha,
this was one of my main plans for a new forum, was to talk about the failed predictions/projections, over the years.
I wish you well on your fine effort. I will make sure to follow it.
Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
Accountability!?
What is the Globe coming to?
Next up… Economists!
Reblogged this on Climate Change Debate and commented:
Amusing infographic.
this site has been around for many years and it was last updated in 2012, so a lot of the links die.-
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
there are 883 links (some dead) to stories of alarmist crap.
Geejam
Your reference to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
One can add Canada and Environment Canada to the nations who seem to have made downward adjustments to annual climate data going back as far as 1948. For example ,in the 2013 annual report , the 23 of the coldest years with negative national annual anomalies , 15 or 65% of the years seem to have been adjusted downward by a range of 0.3 to 0.1 C from the 2008 annual report . Only two years were adjusted upward or warmer. This seems unusual as errors tend to be more evenly distributed between positive and negative.
Herkimer, so Canada (now), Alaska, South America, Australia, etc. Globally, the fraudulent temperature adjustments are being exposed one by one.
pentagon-climate-scenario/ June 2014: Washington Times: Rowan Scarborough: Pentagon wrestles with bogus climate warnings as funds shifted to green agenda
Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened…
The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/?page=all
This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that some politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land
I’ve seen that one posted here before. I like how he’s like “oh, but it wasn’t our intention to predict the future, we were only trying to make people think…”, (aka oops, I was wrong) he says that after many years when none of his predictions have even come close.
This is pretty much how every scare story goes, when they’re pointed out they were wrong they say bs like this. “Oh, but we were never trying to….” YES YOU WERE, you just can’t admit you’re wrong.
Or they come up with a a story stating the exact opposite of what they previously have said.
Dr. Viner was half right when he said snow would become “a rare and exciting event”. It isn’t very rare, but people sure get excited!
Useless site. No opportunity for comments. Very few source links, so we have to just take the author’s word for it.
I would call them prophecies rather than predictions, since the word prediction implies some sort of factual basis.
Climate Fail is hilarious! The invasion of all the plants and animals is really funny. I wonder if they hypothesized species would remain static if there were no change in the climate or the temperature?