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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?