13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

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 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.​

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.)​
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.​
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.”​
You forgot cigarettes cause cancer
 
There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.

Can you tell us how decreasing solar output causes warming?

What's that? Your cult masters didn't inform you that solar output has been decreasing since 1970? My, my. If they lied to you about something that basic, they must have lied to you about everything.

Are you going to ask them why they misled you? Of courses you won't. Good cultists don't question sacred cult dogma. You're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.

solar output has been decreasing since 1970?

Sounds serious. Do you think we've added enough CO2 to avoid the next Ice Age?
 
There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.

Can you tell us how decreasing solar output causes warming?

What's that? Your cult masters didn't inform you that solar output has been decreasing since 1970? My, my. If they lied to you about something that basic, they must have lied to you about everything.

Are you going to ask them why they misled you? Of courses you won't. Good cultists don't question sacred cult dogma. You're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.
Lol
All of the data you’re looking at has been rigged
 
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 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.​

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.)​
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.​
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.”​


None of the listed items constitute scientific consensus, but rather personal opinion.
 
Sounds serious. Do you think we've added enough CO2 to avoid the next Ice Age?

Yes, that does seem likely. Of course, that next ice age would be in 20,000 - 50,000 years.

Do you run your furnace full blast starting in June, because you know winter is eventually coming? That seems to be what you're advocating for the planet.

Yes, that does seem likely.

Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.

Of course, that next ice age would be in 20,000 - 50,000 years.

How do you know?

Do you run your furnace full blast starting in June, because you know winter is eventually coming?

Do you throw your blankets out in July because you forgot solar output is decreasing?
 
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 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.​

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.)​
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.​
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.”​


None of the listed items constitute scientific consensus, but rather personal opinion.
The existence of so called “man-made climate change”… Is opinion, certainly not fact
 
Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.

Huge logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that not preventing an ice age now means we can never prevent an ice age. A rational person would point out that we've got at least 20,000 years to act there.

Do you throw your blankets out in July because you forgot solar output is decreasing?

What does that nonsensical statement have to do with anything?

Oh, that's right. You understand how dumb your "We need to boil the earth right now to stop an ice age in 20,000 years" argument was, so you're trying to change the subject.
 
The climate hysterical will never get that all the data in the world doesnt matter unless the public cares. The public is very aware of the data....they just dont buy the bomb thrower tales. Because they've seen them be wrong a billion times.....st00pid jerkoffs!:113:

Congress....no matter who is holding court.....could not give two shits about the science. Because nobody is calling......doy.


The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.
 
The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.
It's so important that cap and trade bodies will sell permits to pollute. That's how important cap and trade is.
 
At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.

Then why don't you explain it in your own words, to show that you understand, and then we can discuss it.

Please proceed.

If you don't understand, and you're trying to hide that fact, just yell something like "But it's in the video!" as a way of evading.
Specifically, what part of the presentation did you fail to comprehend?

Perhaps I can help you.
 
Last edited:
Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.

Huge logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that not preventing an ice age now means we can never prevent an ice age. A rational person would point out that we've got at least 20,000 years to act there.

Do you throw your blankets out in July because you forgot solar output is decreasing?

What does that nonsensical statement have to do with anything?

Oh, that's right. You understand how dumb your "We need to boil the earth right now to stop an ice age in 20,000 years" argument was, so you're trying to change the subject.

Huge logical fallacy on your part,

Less solar output takes 20,000 years to cause an Ice Age? Link?

A rational person would point out that we've got at least 20,000 years to act there.

I'll await your proof that we have 20,000 years. At least.
What does that nonsensical statement have to do with anything?

My statement was more nonsensical than your furnace idiocy?
We need to boil the earth right now to stop an ice age

Boil? Are you one of the jokers that believes we're going to warm 6C by 2100? More?
 
The climate hysterical will never get that all the data in the world doesnt matter unless the public cares. The public is very aware of the data....they just dont buy the bomb thrower tales. Because they've seen them be wrong a billion times.....st00pid jerkoffs!:113:

Congress....no matter who is holding court.....could not give two shits about the science. Because nobody is calling......doy.


The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.

How many new nuke plants should we build?
 
Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate. If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1) Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2) Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter
4) Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6) Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7) These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.
Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done. As world population decreases, so will greenhouse gases. At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse. Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't. We don't have to do a thing.


Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.
A number reasons. As world temperatures rise, there will be dramatic changes in weather patterns. Central America and Mexico and much of the southern US would become a desert, population would migrant north. A number of Caribbean islands would be abandoned. The US heartlands which is the source of much of the grain that feed hundreds of millions of people would move north into Canada. Much of China and India's agriculture would disappear as Siberia becomes the major source of food for large parts of the world. Island nations such as Japan and New Zealand would loose much it's land mass. However, the biggest problem would be the coral reefs. Almost all of them would die creating a huge shortage of seafood. The result would be famine and wars.

BTW You can't compare the Jurassic period to the period of major climate we expect in the 21st century for a numbers reasons. First, we have far less animal and plant species. Volcanic activity of earth is far less today. The Jurassic period lasted over 50 millions. The climatic change is expected to start causing major problems on earth between 50 and 100 years from now. It will continue until CO2 levels in the atmosphere drop. Since man is the primary cause for the rise, it will drop when man is no longer the cause. That will occur when there is a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or when the world's population is low enough that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.

Yeah but we'll all be in our boxes for scores of years by then and no matter....we cant do dick about it anyway!!:113:

Any worldwide effort will depend on one thing only: costs.....as always. Which means renewables are out of the question.
So you have no kids? Thank God.


1,000s of kids are dying every month in Africa today because of no cheap fossil fuels, why don't you care about them?
 
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 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.​

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.)​
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.​
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.”​
First of all, Earth Day was not about CO2 emissions. It was about smog & particulates and that air pollution along with poilution in our waters. Those predctions did not come true because action was taken & pollution greatly reduced.

Ozone predictions did not come true because action wass taken. Things were banned.

Acid rain predictions did not come trie because we adaopted a cap & trade on SO2 remissions & stopped it.

This "global cooling" bullshit in the 70's was a report by one scientisty whose work was debunked by his peers.

The Arctic Ice cap is shrinking.

Seas are rising.

The oil supply is based on recoverable oil. As the price of oil goes up, more oil is considered recoverable. In 1909, our drilling methods would have had very little oiul recoverable. That said, there is a finite supply of oil, to think otherwise is stupid.

It is really stupid to have a fit about a prediction coming true, if that prediction was a warning & steps taken to address it.

We have taken some steps on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. To go back to take a prediction made before this effort & think that prediction was wrong is just plain stupid.

Its like you weighing 300 pounds in 1990 & I tell, you that you could die young and then you lose 100 pounds & tell me 20 years later that my prediction was wrong because you are still alive.

You people are just ignorant & uneducated & have no logic. All you do is sit around listening to people paid to dupe you & you all dupe so well.
 
Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.
I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.

There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?

Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,

This is your argument?
 
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.”
Erlich was an absolute charlatan. I remember having to read his Population Bomb book in jr. high.
It seemed like dire Chicken Little-ism even then.

Btw...here's another dire scientific prediction for you. Polar bears will be mostly extinct by 2050. Polar Bears Mostly Extinct by 2050
In actuality Polar Bear populations have been steadily climbing since the 1970s. Are Polar Bears Really Endangered?

Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.

I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!

Jo
"Who cares about some stupid canary", said the coal miner.
 
Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.
I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as
to be totally insignificant. All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!
Jo
Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.

There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.
So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?

Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,

This is your argument?

Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.

Jo
 

Forum List

Back
Top