ICYMI, the U.N. told us we’d have ‘disaster’ by year 2000 ‘if global warming was not checked’

I must have slept through that event, thankfully, I’m still here. Global Warming zealots have been predicting doom for years, the latest being that we now have only 12 years left.

But, back in 1989, we were told we have only 11 years left, till the year 2000. If we didn’t act, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels“.

That date came and went. Yet here we are again, with the same old doom-mongering.

Don’t believe me? AP archived the story here:


And, I’ve saved it as a PDF, since things like this tend to get “disappeared”.

165 thoughts on “ICYMI, the U.N. told us we’d have ‘disaster’ by year 2000 ‘if global warming was not checked’

    • It was discovered early on in human history that predictions about the future need not to be correct to gain loads of wealth on them. Actually it is better if the predictions are incorrect, as then the money can be enjoyed for a long time.

      It is so funny that you will tell people about their future and they will give you their money. Funny monkeys.

      • Great observation Javier. One has to love the magic of modifiers in these dire warnings. Woulda, Coulda, shoulda. And nary so much as an “oops! never mind.”

      • Crystal Ball gazing, Palm Reading, Fortune Telling and Daily Horoscope prophies are worth much, much, much, much more than what it cost the person who absolutely, positively needs to know what their future, both short term and long term, has in store for them.

        A Google search for “Daily Horoscope” returned with 111,000,000 (111 million) results.

        A “cottage industry” that’s worth billion$ annually.

        • Don’t forget the “Psychic Friends Network” that was being promoted by Dionne Warwick

      • “Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher

      • “Modern day prophets are batting O.”

        The ancient ones pretty much the same. But 0 instead of O.

        • Sorry, you are wrong. Check old testament prophets. Very accurate about Jesus, thousands of yrs. before the fact.

          • There seems to have been a great deal of cherry picking and obfuscation when it came to OT prophesying. Where do think Nostradamus got his inspiration from?

          • I would reccomend the essay entitled ‘examination of the prophesies’ by Thomas Payne. In it he methodically deconstructs the claims the OT prophets predicted anything at all about the life of Christ.

          • From what I’ve read, it was more a case of the stories of the life of Jesus being retrofitted to the prophecies, rather than the prophecies being accurate ahead of time. When you control the publication of both the prophecies and their supposed fulfillment, you can get away with a lot. This is the ol’ Texas Sharpshooter approach.

  1. I wrote an article for WUWT in Oct 2017 about failed predictions by academics and high ranking officials and this was one of them. In the same chapter:

    17. Time running up predictions

    1989 Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) says that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process. Associated Press. June 29, 1989

    2006 NASA scientist James Hansen says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.
    NBC News. September 14, 2006

    2007 U.N. Scientists say only eight years left to avoid worst effects
    The Guardian. May 5 2007

    Notice that this was section 17. The number of failed predictions is staggering.

    • Hansen’s fingerprints are on so much of what’s wrong with climate science, it’s astounding. He was the progenitor of the ‘original sin’ of incrementally applying Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis to a non linear relationship between W/m^2 and temperature while decoupling the effects of the next Joule of forcing from all the others so that COE could be violated without raising alarm.

    • Actually, it might work better to start a new wikipedia article.
      Something like “Climate disaster predictions”.

      • That kind of article has snowballet’s chance in hell to live. It will be deleted by the gatekeepers of the narrative. Noel Brown is, to begin with, a non-person not even mentioned in the English Wikipedia nor at the official site of the UNEP, and as such an easy target for deletion.

        The article tells, if something, about fake news, but unfortunately we have learned a little in 30 years. Maybe we are more aware of ‘our moral and intellectual superiors’ who distort the truth? Hope so.

        • Would not the best place for a detailed log of climate catastrophe predictions be right here on WUWT? All that’s needed is to formalise the data into a suitable format and put it in a stand alone document.

    • On third thought
      There are enough ‘old crackpots’ on this site, to invade the internet.
      “Climate Disaster Predictions” could be rolled out to multiple sites like RationalWiki, Conservapedia, reddit, facebook …
      Most people never see peer-reviewed papers, but they do use google search.

    • The thing about those vague predictions, and the one in this post, is that they don’t say the world ends in 12 years, or whatever. They imply that after that, we can’t avoid eventual armageddon in some distant unspecified time. The mythical “tipping points”.

  2. Something I’ve written before, had Paul Erhlich been right, I died of famine in the early 1970’s, so I cannot be writing this.

  3. Read carefully: “if the trend is not reversed by 2000”
    Well strictly speaking he is right, if the trend is not reversed entire nations will be wiped off the earth in 3000 years.
    But the the trend will not persist for 3000 years.

      • Mr Mosher it seems unfair to accuse a UN spokesperson of writing “cant “ or hypocritical rubbish – but then to say he “read the news properly “ mitigates your comment to some extent- though it is still poorly punctuated with incorrect spelling.

        • I don’t think he was suggesting the writer was producing ‘cant’ – I think that was another misspelling – of ‘can’t’.

          And I’ve commented before on his grammar/spelling and how it reflects on his own attention to detail – four errors, by my count, in a fourteen word sentence – but I’m sure that’s not demonstrative of his practices in any other area.

      • Mosh, you apparently can’t even spell properly and you expect others to take your nonsense seriously?

          • If he wasn’t such a git all the time, I’d be much more open to giving him a break. But his actions the past few years have earned him all the scorn he gets round these parts. You reap what you sow.

      • Last time I checked, we didn’t reverse the trend in 2000. So where’s the disaster that was supposed to happen?

        • Or since we didn’t reverse by then no point in trying now so stop bothering us all with this nonsense

    • and if the trend was reversed, we would be into a another glaciation in 3000 y time.

      This is the problem with the obsession with “trends” and false assumption that a “trend” has some predictive value.

      This silly idea seems to originate in econometrics where any fool can click a button in Excel to get a “trend line” and think this is more reliable the sheep’s entrails or tea leaves.

    • Apparently you can’t read Hans. Nor you Steve. Sad. Seriously.

      “by 2000” means its all over but the outcome, fait accompli.
      The trend did not reverse (or even Pause), at least according to Tom Karl and his fellow pause buster fraudsters.

      • Joel O’Bryan said:

        “Apparently you can’t read Hans. Nor you Steve. Sad. Seriously.

        “by 2000” means its all over but the outcome, fait accompli.”

        The headline says that outcome (disaster) was predicted to happen in the year 2000. That is not what the article says.

        • Anthony underlined the relevant text.

          The rest is up to one’s interpretation of the dangling participle “by the year 2000.”

          dangling participle (noun)- a participle intended to modify a noun but having the wrong grammatical relationship to it as for example having left in the sentence Having left Europe for good, Peter’s future seemed bleak indeed Also called: misplaced modifier

          • “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels”

            OK, nature of disaster stated.


            So it’s conditional on something.

            “the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

            It’s conditional on the global warming trend not being reversed by the year 2000.

            It’s as simple as that. It is clear what is actually being claimed.

          • A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the
            year 2000.

            I don’t see a dangling participle here. “By the year 2000” clearly modifies “reversed,” and “reversed” modifies “trend.”

            The example above is correctly identified as dangling because it’s not Peter’s fortune that left Europe, but Peter.

            (This feels just like a 2nd Amendment argument)

    • Strictly speaking, he’s a total fracking retard…

      Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP… said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

      If governments solved “the greenhouse effect”… we’d actually have a problem.

        • Blocking the Sun with sulfate aerosols would be one way “to solve the greenhouse effect.”

          As scary as it is to have total fracking retards like Noel Brown and AOC in positions of power, it’s even scarier to think that geo-engineering schemes are in their quiver of policy disasters.

      • Since it has gone past the point of human control, why spend so much money and effort trying to control it?

  4. 30 years later, we are up to 12 years left and people are still sunning themselves on the beaches of the Maldives.

    Now that should be the Inconvenient Truth.

    • From the Quote Investigator: The Danish politician Karl Kristian Steincke authored a multi-volume autobiography, and the earliest evidence known to QI appeared in the fourth volume titled “Farvel Og Tak” which was released in 1948. The title in English would be “Goodbye and Thanks”. The pertinent section of the book was called: Finally a couple of parliamentary howlers. From 1937, Det er vanskeligt at spaa, især naar det gælder Fremtiden. It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

      The next well-known reference is in 1956.

      No One has a cited reference to Yogi, it is an urban myth because he had a knack for saying odd things.

      • Are you sure that the proper translation shouldn’t be “So Long and Thanks for all the Fish?”

        • I think he really said “The fish balls are planning to escape down the fjord on the next tide, but I could be mistaken.” And I too could be mistaken.

        • Probably

          Yogi’s name was similar to that of contemporary baseball star Yogi Berra, who was known for his amusing quotes, such as “half the lies they tell about me aren’t true.” Berra sued Hanna-Barbera for defamation, but their management claimed that the similarity of the names was just a coincidence. Berra withdrew his suit, but the defense was considered implausible. At the time Yogi Bear first hit TV screens, Yogi Berra was a household name.

      • Surely that means – my Danish being limited to Carlsberg and Tuborg – Thanks for the Danegeld,We used it Wisely.

      • “Det er svært at spå, især om fremtiden.”

        Who coined that originally, I don’t know, but it is said Niels Bohr used similar quip with regard to quantum mechanics. They could not predict the electrons path in a double slit experiment.

  5. The government gravy train has been powered by ‘predicted disaster’ as far back as I can remember. ‘Climate Scientists’ learned this from the politicians decades ago. To have effect, the disaster must also be in the near future.

    Sounds to me like they have settled on 10 or 12 years as the optimum. It is still in the near future but timed out far enough so that most will have forgotten, they will have retired or be out of office by then and won’t be held responsible. Guess they just haven’t yet adjusted to cheap data and video storage.

  6. Well I’m sorry Anthony but this is utter rubbish.

    I have it on very good authority that your dates are completely wrong. We do, in fact, have some 9 months left to enjoy our planet as we know it.

    A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

    It is most certainly true because it was published in the Guardian on Sun 22 Feb 2004 01.33 GMT. https://tinyurl.com/ybqezeom


    • Wait, what? A “Siberian climate” was going to cause cities to sink beneath rising seas?! From where was all that water supposed to come? Does all ice on Earth melt when it’s freezing?

      • KcTaz

        No silly. It’s all that water displaced by mega icebergs that are made of….errr….water.


    • Salute Scot!!

      Makes me glad I am almost finished building my ark.
      Good thing, ’cause it rained like hell today and the animals were lining up on my drivewy two-by-two!
      Gums sends…

    • HotScot,

      I find it hilarious that the Guardian has a begging letter following the article.

    • Don’t worry HotScot, after homogenization all the dates point to us perpetually having 12 years left to global doom.

      • Thanks for the link. If it’s not too off topic, there is nice quote about the other end of that war
        … on topic if you don’t trust our glorious leaders.

        The final betrayal of hope came with the Treaty of Versailles, negotiated by the same coterie of old men responsible for setting fire to civilization i 1914. Siegfried Sassoon described it as “a peace to end all peace.” Vera Brittain could not bear to read of its terms, so completely did it betray everything for which youth had fought and died. “They knew it was destined to cause another war,” wrote Graves, and yet “nobody cared.”

        (from Into the Silence, by Wade Davis, p.200 — highly recommended, about the failure of leadership in WW I, among other things.)

        Our current would-be leaders such as AOC are not really making predictions, they are making provocations to force us to act quickly, which is to say, without thinking. Without thinking it through, about all the consequences, all the alternatives, and above all, about whether there really is a problem. Just do it.

  7. One would have thought that the media’s interests would be best served by mocking the alarmists with all those failed predictions.
    Why do they not do it ?
    Is it just that they sell more units with predictions of doom ?

    • They have contracts that clearly state the reporters and editors will not step on the toes of the cartoonists.

    • “Why do they not do it ?”

      The left aligned itself with the IPCC and the press aligns itself with the left. A significant truth of politics is that it has the power to superseded truth. We’re seeing more and more examples of this every day where one persons fake news is an others gospel and visa versa.

    • Perhaps a young person gets excited about this and writes several alarmist reports.
      Media publishes these, and a few years later needs to hire a new reporter/writer.
      The media hires the alarmist, who then gets alarmist reports from a new crop of young folk.
      The mid-level media alarmist soon becomes a higher level media star.
      Filling the pipeline with the young in the first rung, is why it continues.
      I don’t think these places are selling more units.
      Will have to check on that.

  8. There is a reason the ‘end is always nigh ‘ that way they can always claim ‘it will ‘ no matter it fails to arrive so you can never be wrong it is merely a case of your ‘righteousness ‘ being delayed.

  9. FTA: “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. ”

    That was 30 years ago, in 1989. The most conservative estimate was off by more than an order of magnitude. I wonder what the radical nutjobs in charge estimated?

  10. Enter Mosh to say it wasn’t a scientific consensus, therefore just ignore it.

    • Mosh wouldn’t be so polite, and wouldn’t write a sentence that was so easy to make sense of.

      • Greg Cavanagh

        Despite having an English degree, and a philosophy degree; then being awarded the title of ‘scientist’ by his new employer, which enables him to pontificate about climate science, despite being just a humble salesman.

        • Hotscot:

          What is your definition of a scientist?

          Let us know when your climate science site is listed in the bookmarks that appear down the right hand side of the front page and every article posted at WUWT.

          “Moshtemp – Steve Mosher”

          Go and have a look for yourself at what he does. Look for his name in the bookmarks list that appears on this page.

        • Wrong!
          No consensus. Ignore

          Spot on Rich. if I hadn’t of saw your name on the post, I would have mistaken it for one of Mosh’s

  11. About 6 years ago someone was cataloguing AGW predictions, with citations, that failed to materialize. It was basically every one that was made and the time had passed or new information came out (like supposed extinction of some species). Some of the citations became dead links and the job was so time consuming they gave up if I remember correctly. Could have been someone on this forum. There were hundreds. The only prediction that can be attributed to AGW that I’m aware of ,,,, and it’s not caused directly by CO2 … is UHI. None, zero, zilch in 30 years of scaremongering and in some cases outright deception.

    • It just occurred to me that Socialism and CAGW predictions have at least one thing in common (perhaps because they are usually propounded by the same group of people); even though these two things have failed every time they have been, the problem was that they weren’t implemented correctly, but this time will be different because this time they are going to implement them correctly.

      • oops, typo alert, “…time they have been,…” should have been “…time they have been tried,…”

      • Indeed RicDre, pay no attention to all those previous failed predictions because this time we’ve got the predictions right.

    • markl

      As far as I’m aware, the ONLY observable effect of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened (now) by over 14%, 70% of which is directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2, according to NASA. Two continents the size of mainland USA worth of extra vegetation says one of the reports authors.

      Strangely, reciting that fact to greens has them frothing at the mouth. You would think they would be happy.

  12. “The most conservative
    scientific estimate that
    the Earth’s
    temperature will rise 1
    to 7 degrees in the next
    30 years, said Brown.”

    “… significant rise of the
    sea levels … we can
    expect more ferocious
    storms, hurricanes,
    wind shear, dust

    pdf saved :
    This article is a must have !

    A breathtaking and laughable bunch of climate alarmist bullshit.

  13. An observation from someone who has always played ‘the long game’.
    At the beginning, bait your opponents into specific predictions. (Now, with CAGW that move was not necessary, they baited themselves starting with Hansen 1988.) Then UNFCCC (climate island refugees), Viner (snow), Wadhams (Arctic sea ice) and so on.

    Then having established the game tracks, like a skilled hunter/sniper after big game, make your ‘documented’ hunting lair/hide, sit back, and patiently wait. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. We will (not yet) win.

    • They expected it would be all over by now. Obama 2.0 (aka Hillary @ 2017 onward) and the EU were to have fallen like dominoes by now. They had ~35 year window from 1980 to run the hustle. They failed.
      Like playing a video game and the clock is ticking down, but you just can’t get across the finish line before time runs out. Then Trump appears in the 11th hour. Then gilets jaunes appear at 1130. Then at 1140 North America’s harshest winter in at least 45 years appears.
      What is next? A year without a summer?

      • Joel O’Bryan March 3, 2019 at 8:45 pm

        What is next? A year without a summer?

        Please no.


  14. Do climate alarmists belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses by any chance? Haven’t the JWs kept on giving dates for the end of the world and then giving new ones when the original dates are passed?

    • Alba March 3, 2019 at 3:12 pm
      Weeeeeeeee! I love this stuff
      It goes back further “millerites” were the first incarnation; then the Jehovah’s witnesses, then the 7 day adventists. The last two split, can’t remember which was first. Oh yeah, they made book burning a fine art- their OWN books. 😂



    • Alba

      Can I make an admission here.

      I invite JW’s into my home when they knock on my door.

      They don’t stay long.

      My wife says I’m evil.


      • Another Scot, writer Chris Brookmyre, had his main character refer to JWs as ‘flatnoses’, assumedly from all of the doors slammed in their faces!

  15. It is that magic word “could” that always appear. Even with 0,001% probability they would still not say a lie. But they never tell that to the press, oh NO! Liars, that is what they are!

  16. WUWT readers.
    When I tried to find out how much worldwide atmospheric CO2 levels had risen since 1850 (the magic date used as a start to global warming) I was faced with apparently valid but conflicting claims that it had risen by approximately 100 ppm (from say 300 to 400 ppm) and others that said it has not risen significantly at all.

    Also arguments about CO2 levels rising as a response to warming being caused by something other than CO2.

    What gives? Is it just that we don’t really know?

    • If I showed you two swimming pools, one with a million white ping pong balls and 300 black, the other with one million white and 400 black could you tell them apart? Now lets make two water ponds covered with those same ratios. Can you instrument them such that you can tell them apart?

      • Manchester Derby at Old Trafford, 70,000 people 22 players 4 officials and 2 managers. CO2 at 300ppm is represented by the 22 players, 400ppm we’ve added the officials and managers. A UK football/soccer joke United supporters from outside Greater Manchester are represented by Nitrogen, away supporters by oxygen and Manchester born United support by Argon.

        • Dress all spectators in red/green/black. Dress 22 players in white. Measure temperature on field.

          Add 6 officials (dressed in white).

          Keep them there for 7 days and measure the temperature on the field again.

          Ask algore (or any of his followers) what temp increase he would expect.

    • Robert


      Mauna Loa is an active volcano. So they built a station to measure representative global atmospheric CO2 levels on it.

      Is it just me?

  17. Hey they REALLY mean it this time, so send in all your money, it is not going to be cheap to save the planet!

    • Indeed Noel Brown is still with us today. His B.A. and M.A. and Ph.D in International relations not making him any kind of climate expert. We should remember this. No Meteorology degree, no ability to draw a tephigram from some weather balloon readings, or at least understand it from your thermodynamics classes, and your claim to be a climate scientist is probably bogus. Just sayin, because of all the Noel Browns in the world.

  18. As we say in Canada: “If Scott Brisson hadn’t resigned, the world would have ended in the year 2000”

  19. So, all that hysteria of Y2K was just that? Hysteria? When it didn’t matter one jot compared to the end of it all.

    Sorry, my [sarcasm mode] seems to be stuck on [ON]

    How long can this delusional confidence game continue?

    • So, all that hysteria of Y2K was just that? Hysteria?

      Yep. The problem was known well in advance and wouldn’t cause most of the disasters predicted even it was not fixed. But hey, lots of software developers got bonus pay out of it. My company paid extra to those willing to come in on New Years to man the phones in case any of our customers had any urgent Y2k related issues. It was a very quite night.

  20. There are two things wrong with your description of the article. To begin with, it was not “The U.N. told us” but “A U.N. official told us.” Further, his claim is not that there will be a catastrophe by 2000 if we do nothing, but that if we do nothing by 2000, there will eventually be a catastrophe. That’s similar to claims made by other alarmists with other dates–that we have only X years to reduce our CO2 emissions, and if we don’t we will pass the point at which it is possible to prevent a future environmental catastrophe.

    The proper response to such claims is not to point out that the catastrophe hasn’t yet happened, since that isn’t inconsistent with the alarmist claim. It is to point out that if the alarmist really believes what he said, it is now too late to prevent catastrophe, so he should stop trying to persuade people to cut emissions and instead encourage them to dike their coasts, build up stores of food, or, if none of that helps, eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

    I have not yet observed any of the catastrophists whose deadline has passed follow out the logic of their claims.

    • Nope, just like the telemarketers who call for the 27th last chance to take advantage of their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

  21. Washington State seems to be holding up well, despite lurid warnings of impending catastrophe. Seattle is a mess however….. a self-induced mess.

    • Nice video!

      Killer bees did me in long ago and I’m doing my time posting in this Purgatory.

  22. There is a backed by irrefutable facts consensus that climate research is an exact science.
    I’m out for a coffee, anyone could toss me an aspirin ?

  23. http://www.bluecommunity.info/topics/view/51cbfc77f702fc2ba8129a34/

    “…Dr. Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office. Dr. Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University…

    WTF would he know? Scientific credentials only seem to matter if you are a skeptic.

  24. “The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.”

    Finally I can understand the need to continually adjust the temperature records.
    Those useless instruments are showing nothing near that!

    • If 1 to 7 degrees were “most conservative,” then what would moderate and high-end ranges have been? 7 to 13 and 13 to 19?

  25. This is like predicting imminent destruction of a city from a nearby dormant volcano only to end up without even any harmonic tremors.
    So the most absurd aspect of “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth” is that there been no movement towards that happening at all.
    It’s not like it’s underway but a few years off.
    There are no signs of it happening at all.
    Of course tall tales are abundant in efforts to keep the meme alive.

  26. I tell people that I will starting man-made global warming more serious when, and only when, their predictions improve to 1% accurate.

  27. People living in comfortable surroundings, are susceptible to conflate logical domains, operating well beyond science’s near-space and time, and indulge in predictions fueled by inference for short-term secular gains and democratic leverage. This is the observable, reproducible force and direction of evolution (e.g. human life).

  28. IMO, they (climate catastrophists) have only one way to control the conversation: to ‘confess’ that they understated natural variability, and we have entered a short-term cold spell like the 1970s; that temperatures won’t get as low as then because of our contribution to warming; when the normal (which they won’t define) climate returns it will be hotter that the 1930s; and when natural variability turns hot like in the 1930s, our added warmth will cause catastrophes. But rest assured, everything is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAPPEN AT ANY TIME. WE CAN’T PREDICT IT (finally, a grain of truth). Please send more money so we can research this further.

  29. When it comes to climate alarmism, it seems like the more wrong predictions you make, the more credibility you acquire. So it’s pretty safe to go out on a limb and predict the end of the world.

  30. In spite of all the failed predictions, I’ll venture to make one of my own…….. within no more than a month our average temperature will rise an astonishing ten degrees or more. At least I sure hope so.

  31. History is replete with doomsday predictions whose deadlines come and go, yet the Earth continues to spin on…

  32. Around here alarmists are continually claiming they see climate change all around them.
    With that kind of belief system gripping so many people ………………

  33. If it were not such a serious topic it would be a laugh. Just like the story about the disappearing rats. At first they had a plan for their recovery and did did not believe that climate change would be enough to impact them significantly. The rats disappeared and it was “probably” climate change. The 2 to 3 inches of sea level rise just devastated them evidently. By the time the story get to a reporter climate change is the cause and the only cause.

  34. The Press are slightly lazy and time pressed. That’s why every new prediction of climate catastrophe, laid out in a press release, is seized on greedily and printed.

    It needs a new “body” of experts, with sufficient letters after their names, to annually present a new “Wilson Award”, to the most provably ridiculous climate prediction. I’ve called it the Wilson Award because he said;

    “When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” – Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson”, although other well known scientists are available.

    Although he was probably representative of 98% of scientists who believed that the science on electricity was settled in 1878 it’s very lucky that the 2% ignored him.

    The Award could be presented after careful deliberation of the climate fails for that year and notified to the world by press release. It will get publicity.

  35. If in 1989 the world was doomed in 11 years and 30 years later it will be doomed in 12 years then by logical progression in 2049 the world will 13 years later in 2062.

  36. It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.
    Attributed to Mark Twain.

    • Attributed, but there’s no evidence he ever actually said it. The earliest known instance of any variation of the phrase is “Farvel Og Tak” (released in 1948) by Danish politician Karl Kristian Steincke which attribute it to something said in relation to the Danish Parliament of the 1930s (well after Twain’s death) with Early English appearances of the quote (from the 1950s) citing the Danish origins e.g. “Alas, it is always dangerous to prophesy, particularly, as the Danish proverb says, about the future.”

      bottom line: while it’s possible Mark Twain said it or something like it (it certainly sounds like something he might have said), there doesn’t appear to be any record of him doing so.

  37. Rinse. Repeat.

    Now we’ve got twelve more years.
    And in twelve, we’ll have twelve more.

    If any of us are still here after the ‘New Green Deal’.

    • I think we’ve all misunderstood AOC’s talking points (not surprising considering how unintelligible she can be). It’s not that we currently have 12 years left, it’s that we will have 12 years left once her “Green New Deal” is in place. I think she’s being generous, it won’t take the full 12 years to turn the US into Venezuela under the Green New Deal.

      • So – twelve years to DESTROY the planet – or at least modern western civilization – AFTER she implements her green doctrine.

        I agree – it won’t take nearly that long.

  38. The article doesn’t say when the disaster will hit. Just that we had to stop it by 2000.

    So if the disaster hits in the year 3000, they can still claim to be right.

    • It also said that we had to reverse the trend by 2000 to avoid the disaster. We didn’t reverse the trend therefore it’s too late to avoid the disaster, so we need not waste our time on these green initiatives that are decades too late to stop the coming apocalypse!

  39. Just playing devil’s advocate here, but the prediction is that drastic action must be taken by that time. Not that catastrophe would occur by that time. So if some catastrophe occurs some time in the future, they can claim they accurately predicted it. Also convenient, if some catastrophe does not occur some time in the future, they can claim their timely actions averted it. Heads I win, tails you lose.

  40. I remember joining the pro republican movement in the UK when our future king told those who did not believe the hundred months to climate doomsday “headless chickens”. As I remember that expired years rather than months ago now but we never got either an apology or and admission we were right and believers in climate science utterly deluded.

Comments are closed.