13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I definitely know more about this than you do.

Heh, I doubt it. You just said somethi g ass backwards wrong earlier that anyone with even a basic undertandingof this topic would know is retarded.

Furthermore, the truth of climate theories doesn't rely on what i know about them. It relies on the evidence. And, while an uneducated slob like you has an opinion worth less than nothing about them, the people who have dedicated their lives to these scientific fields know much more than you. Please, go debate them, so we can all laugh at you.

You know less than nothing about this topic. You have no education or experience in any of these fields, and you say retarded, wrong things about the science that would get you laughed out of a 10th grade science classroom.

But,most importantly -- pay attention -- you have no evidence and are not producing any.

So -- pay attention again -- the consensus and accpeted theories will not be upended by the embarrassing, incessant whining of deniers like you. Not ever. So stop wasting your time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

then why did they need to come to a consensus???
just let the science speak for itself,,,,

the consensus is needed to insure that the science comes to the right conclusions.

 

[deanrd]

Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.

Well, we know what Republicans think of science.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.

Well, we know what Republicans think of science.

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion

1. I am not a Republican
2. You presume that people are not:
a) discriminating against Republicans for belief in politically incorrect things like Intelligent design and Creationism, which are philosophical sets of beliefs and not science and have n oi implication about ones scientific values.
b) saying they are not Republican because they dont want to catch flak from their peers.
3. You are an idiot.

 

[Zorro!]

Came across this on FB

Tuvalu hasn't far to go and the trend hasn't reversed.

• Studies have found most low-lying Pacific islands either remained stable or increased in size over the decades, including Tuvalu.

A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.

Study lead author Paul Kench told AFP, “the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.” Kench made similar findings in a 2010 study.

Another 2018 study found that nearly 90 percent of low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans either remained stable or increased in size over the decades.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Study lead author Paul Kench told AFP, “the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.” Kench made similar findings in a 2010 study.
Another 2018 study found that nearly 90 percent of low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans either remained stable or increased in size over the decades.

But what if the islands flip upside down?

​

 

[cnm]

A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.

What's your point, that there will be more of Tuvalu to be wiped from the face of the earth as the local sea level rises?

Global warming (recent climate change) is dangerous in Tuvalu since the average height of the islands is less than 2 metres (6.6 ft) above sea level, with the highest point of Niulakita being about 4.6 metres (15 ft) above sea level. Tuvalu islands have increased in size between 1971 and 2014, during a period of global warming.[1] Over 4 decades, there had been a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), although the changes are not uniform, with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. The sea level at the Funafuti tide gauge has risen at 3.9 mm per year, which is approximately twice the global average.[2]
Climate change in Tuvalu - Wikipedia

 

[skookerasbil]

We've been hearing about this " consensus" for many years now. Progressives take bows in front of this banner every day. Good for them!

But the fact of the matter is, the science is not mattering in the real world. The "science" has had no impact on the makers of public policy with regards to climate change.....so it's actually the science embraced by climate sceptics that is embraced. And how hysterical is that?

Congress could not possibly be any less interested in climate chage action....which means the science isnt mattering s0ns!

 

[2aguy]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Yeah....but this time...this time, they have it all nailed down......so you need to give them all the tax money they want, you need to return to the Middle Age way of life, and you need to give absolute power to the people in the government....because this time they know what they are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.

What's your point, that there will be more of Tuvalu to be wiped from the face of the earth as the local sea level rises?

Global warming (recent climate change) is dangerous in Tuvalu since the average height of the islands is less than 2 metres (6.6 ft) above sea level, with the highest point of Niulakita being about 4.6 metres (15 ft) above sea level. Tuvalu islands have increased in size between 1971 and 2014, during a period of global warming.[1] Over 4 decades, there had been a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), although the changes are not uniform, with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. The sea level at the Funafuti tide gauge has risen at 3.9 mm per year, which is approximately twice the global average.[2]
Climate change in Tuvalu - Wikipedia

Tuvalu....really? You twit...

STUDY: These Islands 'Sinking' From Global Warming Are Actually Growing In Size

A new study produced by researchers at the University of Auckland concludes that forecasts about the impact of climate change on some low-lying islands have failed to take into account key factors and thus have overstated the danger posed to inhabitants. The most "counterintuitive" finding in the study: the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu — the poster child of "sinking" island fears — is not only not shrinking, it's actually growing in size.

The study, highlighted by Phys.org, "examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery." Over that period, "eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew."

In total, rather than shrinking in land mass, Tuvalu's total land area increased by 2.9%. This increase is particularly "counterintuitive" because the area in which Tuvalu is located is supposed to have suffered a rise in sea levels that are "twice the global average."

 

[Flopper]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

 

[Flopper]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

 

[Ernie S.]

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.

I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion: Do we have global warming? Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming? Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"? No. There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place. For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong. Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.

I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?

Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe..I always feel embarrassed for them, it's like who you trying to fool?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

My favorite scientific consensus is the one that will surely end all life on earth.

The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894.
.The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

 

[james bond]

We would run out of oil.

It's cheap. I suppose there is only so much oil in the ground, but that's not the main concern. The main concern is air pollution, not AGW.

 

[RealDave]

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.

 

[RealDave]

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I found this list to be pretty interesting.

• We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.
  • In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."
• 
  
• We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.
• Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.
  
  These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​

• The oceans would be dead.
• Global Cooling would destroy the world.
• The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…
  
  

  …a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​
• 
  
• Acid rain would destroy our forests.
• a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.
  
  It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​
• 
  
• Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.

Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, The Population Bomb. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​

• 
  
• We would deplete our natural resources.
• In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.
  
  In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​
  
  
• 
  
• We would run out of oil.

1909: 25 or 30 years longer
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 Titusville Herald (Titusville, PA)​

• 1937: Gone in 15 years
  Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.
  
  "We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"
  
  — March 9, 1937 Brooklyn Daily Eagle​
• 
  1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil
  "M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​

• 
  
• The polar ice caps would melt.

The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute.


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

• Manhattan would be underwater.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​

• 
  
• People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.

In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​

Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​

• 
  
• Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.

Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​

• 
  
• “Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”

Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​

Climate does not change rapidly. It is a rather slow process, that takes decades. That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level. Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc. If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious. However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic. People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.

If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing. If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around. So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them. The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.

Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?

Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe..I always feel embarrassed for them, it's like who you trying to fool?

View attachment 265812

Because you think that we have no information pre-satellite?

Prior yo that, we know nothing.

You are an embarrassment.