13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[RealDave]

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?

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.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

?

What does satellites have to do with world land based temperature recording stations...


Like I said I feel sorry for you who are you trying to fool with just less then 20 years worth of actual data in some parts of the globe.


Once again

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

You arent approaching it correctly. Scientists arent concerned because they hold some ideal for "exact temperature", and temperature will always vary across the globe. They are concerned because the climate is changing rapidly. They would express similar concern, were the climate colling rapidly due to human actions.

The "ideal temperature" line of thought is a red herring invented by paid climate change liars.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe

Why? By what principle? How much more data? Why isnt what we have enough to show a clear signal? The people who dedicate their lives to these fields say that it is enough. But you know better? Sure. You are just making stuff up.

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

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.

Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

 

[RealDave]

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?

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.

Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

Actually, we are in the majority.

Only Trumptards are so stupid so as to ignore it.

 

[RealDave]

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.

?

What does satellites have to do with world land based temperature recording stations...


Like I said I feel sorry for you who are you trying to fool with just less then 20 years worth of actual data in some parts of the globe.


Once again


View attachment 265821

So, if we had these land stations everywhere you want & the result is the same, you would be all for fighting emissions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more

Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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.

3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter

How many trillions would we have to spend on windmills to ensure that precipitation patterns never ever change? How will we know when we've succeeded?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Troll interrogation....

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

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.

Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

Actually, we are in the majority.

Only Trumptards are so stupid so as to ignore it.

A majority of banner gazers!

If the consensus science is correct, why zero climate change action?

It's because the public is unimpressed. Highly unimpressed.

Nobody is calling their representative demanding climate change action.....only those who tend to the hysterical are all ocd about 3mm sea rise. I mean, c'mon now.....the perpetually miserable who need more to do in life sit home and angst about bleaching coral.....

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

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.

3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter

How many trillions would we have to spend on windmills to ensure that precipitation patterns never ever change? How will we know when we've succeeded?

Indeed.....

But when did costs ever matter to a progressive?

 

[mamooth]

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

So what cult lunatic told you AGW science wasn't falsifiable, and why did you believe such a dumb claim? There are many ways in which AGW science could be falsified with realistic hard data, because it's real science. I've listed them before. I can list some again. For example, any of these would falsify AGW theory.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Needless to say, nothing like any of that has been measured or demonstrated, so AGW theory remains unfalsified science in good standing. It's been attacked from all sides, has weathered those attacks, and is stronger for it.

In contrast, most of what deniers put forth is just conspiracy raving. Since that can't be falsified, it's not science. When deniers do put forth specific claims, such as their non-stop claims for the past 40 years about the new ice age RealSoonNow, those claims end up being falsified.

If any denier disagrees, they should describe their theory about what is driving the current climate, and then tell us what realistic hard data would disprove their theory. If they can't, then they're not using science. Note that the "It's natural!" theory has been disproved by hard data, so that would not be a good theory to present.

 

[james bond]

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

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

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

No evidence for that. You are lying.

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.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

 

[Rustic]

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.”​

Yep, There is climate change, it’s just not man-made.... fact

Lol

 

[Rustic]

In a related note that will be Greek to the irrational denier fools piling on in this thread:

The consensuses were overturned on evidence, not on the fetishes and superstitions of a bunch of uneducated slobs.

Hear this Dingleberry doofus....

No scientist worth his salt ever calls anything settled.

Even the so called quick temp rise of the industrial age is just a guess based on best available data....with absolutely no legitimate conclusion that we know all of the potential
sources either of heat or CO2. In addition to that they always neglect the fact that the sun is gradually putting out more local BTUs with each passing orbit. Whatever effect we are having on the climate is apparently about to be overruled by a much larger driver.

Jo

That was an adorable bunch of toddlerish , irrelevant whining completely unrelated to my comments.

I will say it again:

A scientific consensus is not overturned by a bunch of uneducated slobs whining about their politics , superstitions, and fetishes. No, you crybabies are not presenting any real challenge to any accepted theories.

Get off your lazy, dumb asses and produce some science, or STFU. Simple as that.

Lol
Keep your climate change Theories to yourselves, it’s no one else’s business. So shut the fuck up

 

[RealDave]

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

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

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

No evidence for that. You are lying.

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.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

 

[RealDave]

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?

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.

3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter

How many trillions would we have to spend on windmills to ensure that precipitation patterns never ever change? How will we know when we've succeeded?

Indeed.....

But when did costs ever matter to a progressive?

Because the deficits shrink under Democrats & skyrocket under Republicans?

 

[RealDave]

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?

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.

Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study

Actually, we are in the majority.

Only Trumptards are so stupid so as to ignore it.

A majority of banner gazers!

If the consensus science is correct, why zero climate change action?

It's because the public is unimpressed. Highly unimpressed.

Nobody is calling their representative demanding climate change action.....only those who tend to the hysterical are all ocd about 3mm sea rise. I mean, c'mon now.....the perpetually miserable who need more to do in life sit home and angst about bleaching coral.....

So you don;t think there is anything being done to fight AGW? Are ypu blind or just stupid.

The Paris Accord for one.

Several states have told Trump to fuck off & doing their own actions.

Thinking people have taken actions.

Dumbass people like you, no so much.

 

[Rustic]

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

Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.

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

No evidence for that. You are lying.

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.

The rest aren't facts, but assertions. You are one dumb mother, fake dave. You can't spell worth beans either.

higher levels CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temperatures

Proven science.

...and nothing to do with man
Lol