Throwback Thursday #2 – Al Gore's Arctic Facepalm Forecast

This is #2 in an ongoing series of serial forecast failures (that need to be thrown back in their faces) by climate alarmists and their helpers, the mainstream media. Here, USA Today  helped Al Gore make a forecast about Arctic sea ice that had no chance of ever being right. Of course, this was in 2009 at COP15 in Copenhagen, considered by many leaders to be the “last chance” for planet Earth.

Gore-Arctic-ice-gone-2014

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/gore-new-study-sees-nearly-ice-free-arctic-summer-ice-cap-as-early-as-2014/1#.VbDxe9JVhBc

And, the Arctic ice is still there:

N_bm_extent[1]

It didn’t disappear in 2014, and in fact it appears to not be all that much different from 2009 around the time of the peak summer melt in mid-September:

Arctic-sea-ice-sep-2009-2014

Source: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=2009&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2014

The result of this failed forecast:

al_gore_facepalm_reuters[1]

See other Throwback Thursday failed predictions here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
nigelf

Yep, the failed doomsday prophesies just keep coming. Hansen keeps adding to them as well.
How anyone can believe any of this nonsense is a testament to our easy lifestyle and failure to use common sense.

Yes, but it is a warmer ice than normal.

Neo

… and probably “rotten”

Yes, the measurements were 0 deg, 0.001 deg, 0.0012 deg, 0.0011 deg. Granted, our instruments cannot measure to better than 0.01 deg, but there is an unmistakable upward trend of 0.00035 degC/sample.

Ted G

No silly, it’s Styrofoam chunklets made by Koch brothers, another evil skeptics trick!

MarkW

They can’t measure better than 0.01C in a laboratory environment with regular calibration.
In the field … not so much.

rabbit

You misunderstood. Gore didn’t say arctic ice would disappear, or even might disappear. He said it may disappear, meaning it had Gore’s permission to do so if it wished.

Dammit. I hate it when you’re right.

toorightmate

Why are we attempting to defend the bloody idiot.

Hugh

lolz. Headline:
‘OCEANS MAY BOIL DRY BEFORE 2200’
‘Nobel-winning’ Al Gore gives permission for seas to take the Venusian way.

Another Scott

Let’s look at his exact statement: “New computer modeling suggest the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in Summer as early as 2014″ It is so loaded with vague qualifiers it could be true at this very moment no matter how much ice there is in the Arctic Ocean.

Auto

Another Scott
Agreed.
Absolutely.
But was the intention to have those – unashamed – qualifiers bruited?
Or was it meant to be understood as:
New computer modelling means the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free in Summer no later than as 2014 (and winter by 2016 at the very latest) as a bracketty undertone.
Or am I just a pico-tad cynical? Huh?
Auto

MarkW

Auto, you are definitely cynical. Unfortunately in the present environment, that is the correct position to be taking.

Janice The American Elder

We could try putting in those qualifiers with a statement from An Inconvenient Truth: “If we fail to act, it is suggested that the World may be nearly on fire in Summer as early as 2014″. Hmm. This could be a fun game.

JB

Do you think that Al Gore may one day, disappear?

aco Joe

Off topic, but Lubos Motl has a very interesting post concerning false postings by John Cook.

Harry Passfield
Taco Joe

Thanks Harry, I assumed readers were familiar with Lubos.

Alan Robertson

kinda stinky
without a linky

Alan Robertson

ne’er mind

This needs a LOT more exposure.

Harry Passfield

It’s getting it now…..

Scott

Well at least the computer modelers who made the projections were fired, right? I can’t imagine anyone who blew that forecast so bad would have continued employment, unless the point of the forecast was not accuracy but political talking points, in which case the computer modelers did exactly what they were expected to do.

Of course they didn’t get fired… it’s their job. They are the writers of Mad Magazine.

Oswald Thake

That’s a massive insult to the writers and cartoonists of a revered publication!
(Cartoonists…wonder if Cookie could get a job there?)

They weren’t fired because they are not meteorologists. When a meteorologist is wrong again and again, he is sacked. When a climatologist is wrong again and again, he is promoted.

Scott

When a reputable guy like Joe Bastardi is off or wrong with a forecast, at least we get an explanation. Is it too much to ask for an explanation? An examination into what went wrong is how we get better. Sure would be nice to get an explanation about what went wrong with the ice free Arctic prediction. Maybe there is a teachable moment here, something to be learned. Unfortunately there is no intent to “get better” and more accurate with the global warming climate modelers, we don’t get explanations or teachable moments, we get nothing, except more lines of propaganda to swallow, no questions allowed.

tom s

I wrote WADHAM’s again this year about his prediction of ice-free arctic in 2015. He actually responded with a snark last year saying…IT ISN’T 2015 YET…to which I replied, Fine…I’ll wait. I just sent him a reminder….he has not replied. Idiot.

DontGetOutMuch

Could you do James Hansen’s New York underwater by 2008 please. He is back in the news, still predicting New York will go under…

Hansen claims that the reporter didn’t quote him properly. The reporter claims that he reviewed his notes and that, magically, Hansen is right – he wasn’t quoted properly. What’s funny is that Hansen never complained until after his prediction failed. I think the corrected quote only gave him a 10 year extension – which means that the predication still fails in 2018 (because there’s no chance that the West Side Highway will be underwater by then) – I think.
But I agree that this prediction should be revisited.

‘new computer modeling’….this worked so magnificently for IPCC in the lat 25 years; can’t wait until the ‘newer’ modeling surfaces.
The models employed by the Federal Reserve work so efficiently that the 2001 market fall completely took Greenspan by surprise and ditto for the 2007 plunge was missed by Bernanke.

Clif Westin

With Greenspan, remember his “irrational exuberance speech?” Same with Bernanke. They both saw it, predicted it and warned about it….. In reality, some models do work. The ones that are vetted and show a correlation to reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_exuberance

Patrick Bols

level in the Great Lakes is up 3-4 ft as I heard this morning. Reason is increased precipitation, snowfall, cold because of these darn polar vortexes. The root cause of all these strange wether phenomena is of course: global warming.

Mark from the Midwest

Levels were pretty low a few years ago and they’re up 30-36 inches from the lows, which puts them above average, But fairly cold water temps for this time of year, which will, likely, lead to more ice next winter
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html
and ….
http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/m2.html
Having a family residence in Northern Michigan for 139 years I can tell you that this kind of cyclical stuff is pretty normal, The only man-made tragedy up here are those pseudo-estates at Bay Harbor

John M

Great Lakes levels were going to rise as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. It’s just that the recovery is…unprecedented!
Remember when rising temperatures seemed to be “working”? For a while there was a “nice” surge in Hurricanes. Then it was polar ice.
Now, you’ve got to bear in mind the tactics of the New Activism: I’ve got just one word for you—extremes.

Winnipeg Boy

It takes a long time to get dry, and a very short time to get wet.
Water levels rose 3 feet in 2 years. That is on pace for 150 feet per century right?
Only a moron would extrapolate a long term cyclical phenomenon on a short term basis. Yet we pay billions to people who do just that.

Scott

They spend a lot of money dredging out my Lake Michigan harbor this spring because of the low water conditions 2 years ago. No one ever said government spending was efficient.

Tom in Florida

Love the new Throwback Thursday feature. It alone is worth the price of admission 🙂

Bubba Cow
Tom in Florida

will do again, et tu brute?

Ancient Mariner

My all-time favourite is Hansen’s boiling oceans prophecy. That alone should have discredited him forever. Why didn’t it?

Barbara

He serves the political and other interests to the Washington well connected.
The media knows that what they publish is difficult to prove when it comes to climate science. Can’t prove the future.

Here are the facts: the Arctic WILL be ice free this summer. A scientist says so…
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/definition-barber-event/

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

The Arctic is ice-free now: if you can get there, you can get all the ice you want for $0.00.
Offer limited to one gigaton of ice per customer; customer must arrive in rowboat; whiskey not included; consuming arctic ice mixed with whisky is known to the State of California to cause cancer in laboratory animals and is not recommended for pregnant women or women who may become pregnant; the effects of consuming arctic ice with whiskey on pregnant men or men who may become pregnant are not known, but a court decision is expected shortly; void where prohibited by law; mandatory where not prohibited by law. Ask your doctor if arctic ice is right for you.

North of 43 and south of 44

You left out the missive about being in or from areas where fungal infections are frequent or common.

rah

I would suspect that if every week you highlighted one “expert” or politician who made a forecast similar to Gore’s or reiterated such a forecast as being authoritative there would not be enough weeks in the year to cover them all.

Sun Spot

Love throw back Thursday’s, hilarious +1

Curious George

Inertia: Lying once started is hard to stop.

The Original Mike M

Truths are facts honest people can freely forget. Lies are burdens dishonest people are forced to remember their entire life … maybe longer.

I think Al has finally beaten out Curly as my favorite Stooge.

The Original Mike M

No way never… Moe, Larry, CHEESE!

Dawtgtomis

Check out curly’s advice for Al

Oldseadog

Facepalm? I thought that was something to do with cardsharping.

William Astley

Record sea ice for every month of the year in the Antarctic. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Sudden increase in ice mass on the Greenland ice sheet. Sudden increase in multi year sea ice in the Arctic. http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks, it’s a duck. Yup the planet is cooling.
The cult of CAGW will very shortly require a plan to B to explain why the planet is abruptly cooling which should be impossible based on what they have spent the last 30 years telling us, blah, blah, blah, ….
Unequivocal significant planetary cooling, is only possible if there are one or more fundamental errors in the cult of CAGW’s surface warming calculations and if the majority of the surface warming in the last 30 years was due to solar cycle change modulation of planetary cloud cover, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The cult of CAGW’s no feedback calculation for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 which is the foundation of CAGW, fixed the lap rate for the calculation and ignored the fact that the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap. There is no scientific basis for either assumption however both are necessary to create any significant surface warming. The so called ‘no feedback’ calculation determined the forcing for a doubling of CO2 is 4 watts/meter^2 which was later changed to 3.7 watts/meter^2.
Question: How does taking into account reality/physics facts affect the doubling of the atmospheric CO2 calculation? Do you remember Al Gore’s analogy of millions of tiny light bulbs heating the surface of the earth?
Effect of correcting Cult of CAGW’s known calculation errors for the no ‘feedbacks’ double atmospheric CO2 forcing case
1) Effect of surface warming if the fact that the Absorption spectrum of CO2 and water overlap is not ignored. As there is a great deal of water vapor lower in the lower regions of the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics (no surprise 70% of the earth is covered with water), there is a significant reduction in surface warming due to the CO2/water absorption spectrum overlap.
Redoing the double atmospheric CO2 level, no feedback calculation with an atmospheric model that takes into account the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and the radiation effects of water/CO2 absorption overlap reduces the surface forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 3.7 watts/meter^2 to 1.1 watts/meter^2 ( reduction in surface forcing of a factor of four, see figure 2 in the linked to paper). The 1.1 watts/meter^2 increase in forcing will result in surface warming of ball park 0.1C to 0.2C which is so small, the no feedback case is the same as with feedback case.
(Check out figure 2 in this paper.)
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281982%29039%3C2923%3ARHDTIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Radiative Heating Due to Increased CO2: The Role of H2O Continuum Absorption in the 18 mm region
In the 18 mm region, the CO2 bands (William: CO2 spectral absorption band) are overlapped by the H2O pure rotational band and the H2O continuum band. The 12-18 mm H2O continuum absorption is neglected in most studies concerned with the climate effects of increased CO2.

2) Effect of surface warming if the fact that Greenhouse gases cause an increase in convection cooling is not ignored. It is a fact that greenhouse gases increase the lap rate (hot air rises and hot air rising must be balanced by colder higher elevation air falling, convection cooling dominates up to 20 km).
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2015/07/collapse-of-agw-theory-of-ipcc-most.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B74u5vgGLaWoOEJhcUZBNzFBd3M/view?pli=1

Collapse of the Anthropogenic Warming Theory of the IPCC

4. Conclusions
In physical reality, the surface climate sensitivity is 0.1~0.2K from the energy budget of the earth and the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W.m2 for 2xCO2. Since there is no positive feedback from water vapor and ice albedo at the surface, the zero feedback climate sensitivity CS (FAH) is also 0.1~0.2K. A 1K warming occurs in responding to the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for 2xCO2 at the effective radiation height of 5km. This gives the slightly reduced lapse rate of 6.3K/km from 6.5K/km as shown in Fig.2.

The modern anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory began from the one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) studies with the fixed absolute and relative humidity utilizing the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km (FLRA) for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 [Manabe & Strickler, 1964; Manabe & Wetherald, 1967; Hansen et al., 1981]. Table 1 shows the obtained climate sensitivities for 2xCO2 in these studies, in which the climate sensitivity with the fixed absolute humidity CS (FAH) is 1.2~1.3K [Hansen et al., 1984].
In the 1DRCM studies, the most basic assumption is the fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2. The lapse rate of 6.5K/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962) [Ramanathan & Coakley, 1978]. There is no guarantee, however, for the same lapse rate maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 [Chylek & Kiehl, 1981; Sinha, 1995]. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 is a parameter requiring a sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig.1.

The solar cycle has been interrupted, this is a big deal. The public and media will of course notice that the current abrupt change to the sun correlates with current abrupt cooling.
In addition to abrupt cooling which will be fun to talk about, the explanation of what is happening to the sun will result in the most important scientific discovery of the last 70 years. Comparable to the discovery of nuclear energy or quantum physics.
This is the solar so called gray scale display which enable one to see tiny sunspots that are no longer visible with broad spectrum.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg

joelobryan

The clearest evidence that the Church of CAGW high priests know their orthodoxy is in trouble is by the Karl et al, 2015 Science paper vainly trying to create some (any) warming for 18 years of rising CO2.

John M

Poor Al made the mistake of prognosticating a testable event. The “new and improved” politicians now know to blame the World’s terrorists on climate change, which is not only non-testable, but only discussable in the realm of foreign policy and political analysis…an area that’s so fuzzy and nebulous that you can claim virtually anything, which folks are happy to do.

AGW theory is in the process of being proven wrong on every single prediction they have foolishly made.

knr

To be fair they have started to make their predictions for so far in the future that they will not be around to be reminded of their claims when they fail . Now I wonder why that is ?

RD

Nice work hanging Gore from his own petard.

Bruce Cobb

Yes, I just wish we didn’thave to look at his ugly puss.

Brian S

Seeing that fat, flabby face reminds me to ask: Has anyone made an estimate of the ‘negative carbon footprint’ attributable to each one of us, and the ever increasing billions of inhabitants of Planet Earth? Even a wattle-and-daub hut has wooden supports, a thatched roof and contains wooden furniture. How much carbon is sequestered, on average, by each new addition to Earth’s population? If CO2 actually were a problem the population explosion would seem to me to be counteracting it quite significantly.

MikeB

2014 seems to be a very cautious estimate from Al Gore in the light of even more alarming predictions.
How about a prediction of ice-free by 2000

Arctic Ocean to be ice free by Year 2000, by Bernt Balchen (who is recognised as a leading specialist on the Arctic) – He also says that the Northern USA would be 20 to 25 degrees warmer than it is now.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zmI0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=L5wEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5376,3200988&dq=ice+free+arctic&hl=en

0r 2008

“It seems unthinkable, but for the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year” (Steve Connor ‘Science Editor’, The Independent 2008)
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html

or 2012

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (National Geographic, 2007)
“After reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html

or 2013

Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ (BBC 2007)
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007……So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

And, whilst we are laughing, the best of all…

LONDON ON THE BORDER OF DESTRUCTION. To Be Wipel Out by a Huge Wave. According to a recent theory of some geologists…..due to break up of Antarctic ice cap (1901)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/64027823#pstart6133478

So, the moral of this story is: Don’t lose too much sleep on end-of-the-world scare stories.

Two Labs

Technically, he said “may.” Watch their language- that’s how these tools succeed in scaring people “to action” (read: to support handing more of their social power to goverments).

Bruce Cobb

Pigs may fly by 2020.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

While we are compiling, let’s not forget Vicky Pope:

John in Oz

Interesting comment at 1::35

It’s quite difficult to disentangle natural variations from climate change

Obviously using the IPCC definition of climate change, being unnatural and caused by humans.

Catcracking

Thanks for the Video, I found myself laughing at the fool making failed prediction after failed prediction. It is hilarious.
Hopefully she no longer has a job and is no longer filling British subjects with such drivel.

Berényi Péter

There is nothing wrong with counterfactual reasoning. If my aunt had a certain appendage, she would be my uncle.
Mr. Gore never said “polar ice cap will disappear 2014”, but “polar ice cap may disappear by 2014″. And, of course, it’s exactly what’s happened. It might have disappeared (eg. in a world with different physics), the fact it did not, has nothing to do with Mr. Gore’s proposition. In fact no fact whatsoever has anything to do with the man, who used to be the next president of the US.

Gunga Din

To be fair, Algore did base his prediction on computer models and Al did put in the CYA “may” so he wasn’t wrong. The ice did/may have “virtually” disappeared in 2014.
Lots of things have “virtually” happened in the various “virtual realities” out there.
(I think there are name for those who can’t tell the difference between virtual reality and real reality or attempt to blind others to the difference for some sort of personal gain.)

ren

The periods dominated by any single form of atmospheric circulation have alternated with a roughly 30-year period for the last 100 years. These periods were named “Circulation epochs”. These may be pooled into two principal groups: meridional (C) and combined “latitudinal” epochs (W + E): (W + E) = – (C)
Meridional (C) circulation dominated in 1890-1920 and 1950-1980. The combined, “zonal” (W+E) circulation epochs dominated in 1920-1950 and 1980-1990. Current “latitudinal”(WE) epoch of 1970-1990s is not completed yet, but it is coming into its final stage, and so the “meridional” epoch (C-circulation) is now in its initial stage. (It will be useful for the reader to note here the relation that shows that the “transition” from C to W-E is continuous, and the equation balances to 100%, in the form of a simple graphic without any other variables included).
It was found that “zonal” epochs correspond to the periods of global warming and the meridional ones correspond to the periods of global cooling. (Lamb 1972; Lambeck 1980). The generalised time series on the atmospheric circulation forms for 1891-1999 were kindly placed at our disposal by the Federal Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) in St. Petersburg (Russia). This is also consistent with the theories and observations described by Leroux (1998).
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2787e/y2787e03.htm#TopOfPage

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

We must demand, that Al Gore must return his Noble Prize, for failures in his forecasts on which he received Noble Prize.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

harrytwinotter

It was not Al Gore’s forecast, he was referring to some of the forecasts done by science teams.

catcracking

Harry,
Cute.
When you are speaking before a major Conference of alarmists, and refer to alarmists quotes, you OWN it.
The exaggerations become yours unless you clearly state that the predictions are unlikely or have a low probability
Gore also incorporated about a dozen lies in his movie as determined by a UK court, if he is not capable of judging reality that is part of his reputation. His record is clear, no excuses accepted here.
[28 lies, as recalled from the UK court case. .mod]

rah

No he was not “referring” to those forecasts. He was preaching them as if they were the Gospel! Go soft peddle your spin too fools that would buy it!

Luke

Does anyone here deny that the arctic sea ice extent is declining rapidly? If so, please provide evidence that it is not. Here is an analysis showing that the decline we are seeing in the arctic sea ice is unprecedented in the last 1450 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

Luke

Does anyone here deny that the arctic sea ice extent is declining rapidly? If so, please provide evidence that it is not.

Well, the past two years, Arctic sea ice has averaged right at 6-7 percent below its long-term averages through the year – going above that difference only as sea ice gets near its annual minimums in mid-September, we are “denying” nothing.
Further, since Antarctic sea ice is expanding and setting new record extents at 11% to 37% ABOVE its long-term averages all year long, and since this excess Antarctic sea ice reflects some 1.68 TIMES the solar energy over the year that any “missing” Arctic sea ice absorbs, and sicne this excess Antarctic sea ice has been regularly larger than the entire area of Hudson Bay, and has been equal to the entire Greenland icecap while setting that new record sea ice extent,
And, since today’s “missing” Arctic sea ice loses more energy through increased evaporation, conduction, LW radiation and convection losses than it gains through increased solar exposure 8 of the 12 months of the year,
and since Arctic sea ice cannot in any way go “lower” than a potential complete loss in mid-September (by which time the Arctic is receiving some 10 TIMES less energy than the Antarctic (which is unlimited in sea ice expansion),

I’d say there is not only no reason to worry about any subsequent potential future loss of Arctic sea ice, but that there is very little current Arctic sea ice loss, and yet much more to worry about if current trends continue: Arctic sea ice loss from today’s levels and Antarctic sea ice gain from long term averages. BOTH of today’s trends cause irrevocable heat loss from the earth.

rah

I don’t need to “deny” it. The data does: comment image?w=1024&h=682

RobRoy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/06/introducing-the-wuwt-beaufort-sea-ice-reference-page-with-observations/
Luke use the Force.
Try this link.
I, myself, sure got a good feel for how dynamic sea-ice really is.

Thomas Englert

What makes you think a decline in Arctic ice (assuming that’s the case, and assuming it’s a result of warming due to CO2 increase caused by human activity, which is a stretch) is a bad thing?
Planetary warming is good, but cooling is bad, very bad.
If increasing CO2 would warm the Earth, that would be another good reason to pump it out as fast as we can. The other, primary reason is that nearly all life on Earth depends on it for survival.
Reducing CO2 by half, I.e., 200 ppmv, would result I’m massive loss of life, both plant and animal. Global cooling would suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, which would exacerbate loss of life (at least on dry land) caused by cooling itself.
Why are CAGW alarmists so anti life? A cold, CO2 starved existence is not something to be desired.

Dawtgtomis

Hmm… they show up en masse again…

co2islife

Al Gore would have been right if he had said 1987:comment image
Polar Bears and Subs
http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/sub_bears2.jpg
1959comment image?w=346&h=261
http://leurenmoret.info/_Media/pic-23-ssn-skate-5962-globa.jpeg

co2islife
Mervyn

It makes one wonder just what all the delusional global warming alarmist freaks will be declaring at the coming Paris climate conference in December.
Remember the Copenhagen Conference? Leading up to that December 2009 conference, It was touted as “the most important meeting to save the world”.
Now, it’s happening all again. United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, stated during an interview of the Associated Press in Paris, France, Wednesday, July 22, 2015 that the upcoming climate change conference in Paris is the last chance for a meaningful agreement.
Once again, the scaremongering. Always “the last chance” etc etc etc. Soon we will have the heavies also come on board… like Al Gore and Prince Charles, and the usual army of enviro-eco-terrorists hoping Paris will be the green light for the implementation of the UN’s AGENDA 21 triggering the dismantling of capitalism.
Yet when will these climate change charlatans calmly sit back and reflect on all the dire predictions made over the last two decades about coming climate catastrophes, which have not come true, and pose the question how did they get it so wrong?