Halloween Climate Scare #5: We Have 12 Years to Save The World

This is the fith of 10 videos highlighting false climate scares by climate alarmists. This one covers the claim that we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe. Happy Halloween! And find real scares this year, not fake ones the climate alarmists have foisted on your children. Learn more about what’s really happening to our climate (it’s not scary) here:

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Halloween Climate Scare #5: We Have 12 Years to Save The World

  1. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is almost imperceptible and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. If “greenhouse gases” are to blame then H2O is the primary culprit of which most comes from the oceans over which mankind has no control. Most of the Earth’s surface involves some sort of H2O. Both H2O and CO2 are vital to life on this planet and for us to survive they cannot be removed from our atmosphere. The climate catastrophe that they are predicting has not happened for at least the past 500 million years. The Earth’s climate has been stable enough over all that time for life to evolve. We are here. The interglacial period that we are in seems to be gradually ending but it will probably take tens of thousands of years for the next ice age to establish itself and we do not have the power to change it. We do not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from change, extreme weather events and sea level rise could continue so there is nothing to be gained by doing so.

    • The reality is that the climate change that many think has been happening is imaginary and is just the byproduct of left politics choosing the wrong wide of the science whose many errors are then ignored by a lackey MSM as they breathlessly pontificate about catastrophic climate change that won’t happen until the Sun reaches its red giant phase in a few billion years.

    • I don’t think it will take tens of thousands of years, William Haas. The rough chart I made shows clearly that the warm periods are consistently shorter than the cold periods, whether they are punctuated by brief bouts of prolonged cold or not.

      I only looked at the length of time, nothing else. And yeah, this warming period may be coming to an end some time in the next 500 to 1500 years…. or not. The “signal” will be when snow up north and in the southern hemisphere does not melt back and the snow line slowly moves south (in the north) or north (in the south). So far, winter snows in both hemispheres melt back, depending on where they are and the humidity levels, but that doesn’t mean things can’t change.

    • True story. The #10 video was the first, so this is the sixth.
      Counting backwards can be confusing.

    • I thought we were counting down, Crispin. After this it’s 4 days to Halloween, so clip #4 should be posted tomorrow.

    • It is actually the “sixth” video?

      Yes and no. It’s the 6th video to be released, but as we are counting down it’s the fifth of the 10. Tomorrow will be the 7th released but fourth of 10. Until we reach Halloween with the 10th released being the 1st of 10. (we started with 10th of 10 and have been working backwards to reach the first)

      • Actually, Anthony only said it was the “fith” video. (Check it for yourself.) Was he writing with a lisp?

  2. Perhaps these should be sold as a box set to be put under the kid’s bed by father Christmas?

  3. The Co-author of the Special Report on 1.5 degrees Warming, Dr. Miles Allen has stated expressly that the U.N. IPCC has been verballed by alarmists claiming that there are 12 years to prevent a climate catastrophe or that one will occur immediately thereafter.
    See “ Why protestors should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric”, ( The Conversation, 19 March 2019).
    This article should have been given prominence in the MSM but was deliberately ignored.
    It has escaped the attention of Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion.
    And we have Beto O’Rourke telling Iowa High School children-
    “If we do not abolish all fossil fuels within 12 years, everything on the planet will be dead.
    The scientists are 100% united on this.
    Just as Americans of the past had to fight at Normandy, we have to fight this now and save the planet.”

  4. I have saved to my cell phone a word doc I made containing 41 failed predictions dating back decades. So if I’m talking to someone who is fretting about these climate scares I can whip out my cell and read off other scares that expired years and decades ago. No, there was no mass starvation by 1975, mass extinction by 1995, ice free Arctic by 2013 and many others. It’s times like this I’m glad I got my degree in history. I wanted to major in physics but I didn’t have a head for higher math.

    • in the world of the sane, it can’t be. In the world of the insane virtue signally left, it always is.

      In 1969 we had 20 years until every disappeared in a cloud of blue steam (according to Ehrlich)
      A year later, Ehrlich was only giving 4 years till water rationing and 10 until food rationing.

      In 1971, Dr S.I. Rasool of Nasa was predicting a 6 degree drop in temperatures over the next 50 years time (so we need a greater than 6 degree drop over the next 2 years to get back on track for that one!) possibly triggering an ice age.

      In 1988 The Maldives were predicted to be completely underwater within the next 30 years (31 years later, and the Maldives remains just fine).

      In 1988/1989, James Hansen has a conversation with a reporter and claimed the West Side highway would be underwater due to sea level rise in 20 or 30 years. It’s been 30 years and the west side highway is not noticeably any closer to being underwater than it was in 1988.

      In 1989, Rising seas would “obliterate” nations if global warming not stopped by 2000. It’s been nearly 20 years since that “tipping point” and rising seas haven’t wiped out a single nation, not even the Maldives.

      According to a 2004 report in the guardian, Britain would have a Siberian climate by 2020 with Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, and wide-spread riots erupting around the world. Of those only the riots seems to be on track, but the ones rioting are the climate believers of the XR ilk.

      In 2008 Hansen was at it again, predicting we’re toast and only giving 5 to 10 years for an ice free arctic (around this same time Al Gore was only giving it 5 years). Well 10 years was up last year and the arctic is no closer to being ice free (in fact it’s even further away from it)

      In 2009 Prince Charles was only giving us 96 months to save the world. (that same years PM Gordon brown did chuck one better by saying the planet only had 50 days to be saved). 120 months later and the world is no closer to being saved than it was when chucky-boy and brownie made those pronouncement.

      and that’s just a few of the failed predictions of the “x years/months/days until” variety.

      h/t to cei for collating those and much more at
      https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

  5. while I class myself as a climate realist, and a skeptic, I’m not going to bother to read this post because it’s based on a lie; in the very first premise. Specifically “the claim that we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”. There is no such claim. The claim is that if, within the next 12 years, we don’t implement the necessary, albeit crazy, measures to stop global warming, then a crisis will follow at a later time. And that later time is some vague, convenient I know, time in the latter part of this century. The crazy left and their pathetic attempt to whip up a frenzy about a coming climate Armageddon constantly stoop to half-truths, cherry picking the evidence etc. I like to think that the skeptic, realist types, have something of a levelheaded approach and starting off with a fundamental misrepresentation of what the other side says, which is what the writer has done here, does a great disservice to this website.

    • “Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?” — Alexandera Ocasio-Cortez

      • https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report
        “We have just 12 years to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure to limit global warming to moderate levels, the United Nation’s climate science body said in a monumental new report released…”
        This is a more accurate representation of what the claim is. It does not say that “we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”. AOC can say what she likes. She is twisting up the facts and unfortunately that is what the writer of this article has done too. I don’t believe we have 12 years left to implement their crazy solutions myself, but my point is that we need a sane debate about it and were not getting it from both sides it seems.

        • Meant to put the second of my two replies below here. Rather than cut and paste them twice, I’ll just direct you to look to the replies at the other location you posted the above.

          • After being roundly criticized for it, she eventually walked it back with a “just joking” excuse

    • We all understand the claim. The point is that the claim has been made every few years for the last 5 decades.

      • my point is that obviously people do not understand the claim at all

        https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/17948832/climate-change-global-warming-un-ipcc-report
        “We have just 12 years to make massive and unprecedented changes to global energy infrastructure to limit global warming to moderate levels, the United Nation’s climate science body said in a monumental new report released…”
        This is a more accurate representation of what the claim is. It does not say that “we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”. AOC can say what she likes. She is twisting up the facts and unfortunately that is what the writer of this article has done too. I don’t believe we have 12 years left to implement their crazy solutions myself, but my point is that we need a sane debate about it and were not getting it from both sides it seems.

        • Andy you just admitted that there is someone who as publicly made that climate Scare (AOC) so it is you who is twisting facts about this post – to wit:

          This Post: Halloween Climate Scare #5: We Have 12 Years to Save The World
          rating: True – there are alarmists, like AOC, who have pushed that climate scare.

          Andy: this post because it’s based on a lie; in the very first premise. Specifically “the claim that we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”.
          Rating: False – Andy , as shown above, you are wrong about this post (unlike you, I’ll refrain from making an accusation of your premise being a lie).

          • No unfortunately the claim by AOC is false. The claim came from the IPCC, not AOC. read the link that I sent. That is the point about sane debate. Some fool, AOC, says something which is completely untrue, getting the statement from the IPCC all twisted up in the first place. Not that the claim of the IPCC is correct, just that, that is what the IPCC said in the first place. let’s take the 12 year claim from the IPCC as the authoritative statement. Then we can refute it. there is no point posting articles or having debate about someone’s misinterpretation of the original statement. The debate just gets crazier and crazier.

          • No unfortunately the claim by AOC is false

            That’s the point, AOC’s claim is a “climate scare” presented to the public.

            The claim came from the IPCC, not AOC. read the link that I sent

            And the video, which you didn’t watch, addresses that point. watch the video.

            That is the point about sane debate

            Sane debates starts with the truth, not calling the truth a lie like you did:
            This Post: Halloween Climate Scare #5: We Have 12 Years to Save The World
            rating: True – there are alarmists, like AOC, who have pushed that climate scare.

            Andy: this post because it’s based on a lie; in the very first premise. Specifically “the claim that we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”.
            Rating: False – Andy , as shown above, you are wrong about this post (I can no longer refrain, since you are doubling down I have to call it as it is: your premise is a lie)

            Some fool, AOC, says something which is completely untrue

            yes, hence “climate scare”. If what was said was true, it wouldn’t be a scare. And AOC, like it or not, is a prominent public voice. call her a fool all you want, but unfortunately people hear what she says and will believe it if “sane” people fail to respond to her climate scares.

            let’s take the 12 year claim from the IPCC as the authoritative statement

            You have to do more than that, because more than that is in the public domain. Indeed, the public (at least in the US) is more likely to know what AOC said that what the IPCC said.

          • Further, Andy, it’s not just AOC peddling that line. The Guardian and other pro-climate rags do too.
            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report
            https://nypost.com/2018/10/08/terrifying-climate-change-warning-12-years-until-were-doomed/

            (I could post many more links from the likes of CNN and the independent, just to name two, but then my post will be destined for moderation hell)

            again, hence the “climate scare” part of this post rather than “climate truth”

            (Also, btw, you lose many credibility points for pointing to garbage like VOX as a source of information, though even that link is labeled “Report: we have just 12 years to limit devastating global warming” which is an equivalent scare as saying “we have 12 years left before a total climate catastrophe”. Did you even read that garbage VOX article? it’s full of the same kinds of climate scare for it’s premise that you pan this post for referring to).

        • It is you, Andy, who doesn’t understand the post. The point is, it’s a climate scare made by prominent people in the public eye. The whole point is that such scares are not based on anything factual.

        • Also, let’s not forget, regardless of what you think of AOC she’s in Congress pushing legislation that would, if passed, adversely affect everyone in the US of A as well as the economies of all of our trading partners the world over. And all the Democrat candidates running for President have all backed that legislation to one degree or another (many of them are even co-sponsors of the Senate version of her GND bill). So yes, unfortunately, it is important to address whatever climate scare she peddles.

  6. Oh, gee, each point in time is a point of no return. Such systems tend to be… NOT reversible.

    So, no matter how much money you throw at such change, it won’t be ‘solved’. You won’t get young again, definitively not in the same state as X years ago. You won’t get the Earth in the state that was Y years ago. No return, sorry.

  7. 12 years wasa 2 years ago though so now we only have 10 years. But 30 years ago we had 11 years so at this rate we may have to wait another 30 years before we have 9 years left.

    • wait, wait, if 30 years ago we had 11 years, and 2 years ago we had 12, than we are gaining a year every 28 years therefore in another 26 or so years we should have 13 years. the end just never seems to arrive and just gets further away as each end date unremarkably passes.

  8. Why are we arguing with crazies? It begins to sound like drunks trying to decide who is the drunkest.
    Can’t we just stick to facts as we understand them them and try to point them out to as many people as will listen. The problem is that in climate study there are no facts that are completely clear or definitive That is why the IPCC uses levels of confidence for nearly every statement or prediction that they make. What this means is that each conclusion can be right, wrong, partly right, or partly wrong. As skeptics our conclusions are no less subject to the same limitations.
    Some such conclusions–

    The planet has warmed about 1 degree celsius since the depths of the little ice age.
    If errors bars were used this would likely be considered nothing or at least insignificant.

    CO2 is a significant driver of global temperatures.
    This has very limited experimental support but observations seem to falsify it. Evidence by model can likely be discounted in view of their record of accuracy

    Human activity is the major cause of climate change and specifically warming.
    There is ample observational evidence that we have an impact on the climate and the environment in general. Climate impacts are probably rather local. Build an East West wall and you will create a warmer environment on the south and cooler on the north (this can be dramatically impacted by color). Even this is partly wrong as it would not hold true at the equator.

    A warmer climate is bad
    This one is really an unsupported assumption based almost entirely on models. Bad for who? Surely there are advantages for some.
    Observations have generally shown the opposite. One thing is almost certain. A colder climate will be bad for humanity.
    I could go on for pages but I severely question the ability of modern humans to make rational decision in regard to their own welfare. Evidence for this surrounds us on all sides.

    • “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – often attributed to Winston Churchill

      Unfortunately, you need to do more than just “stick to the facts” you need to play whack-a-mole with the crazy climate scares. Because the only thing worse than a crazy climate scare is a crazy climate scare that the public believes because it went unrefuted in order to “stick to facts as we understand them”

      • John, I did not rule out ridicule. That can be an effective weapon when it is funny and applied to the ridiculous. It hardly qualifies as conversation though.

  9. Someone also said–“You can fool all the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
    It seems at this point that we still have a significant some that are completely fooled and probably will be for all time.

  10. Perhaps there are only twelve years to reverse the global progressive socialist takeover, after which the hard-line despots become firmly entrenched.

Comments are closed.