"Science be damned!" Let's have Oil rule our lives!

That recycling costs massive amounts of oil.
:auiqs.jpg:
Panels are only half the equation. The batteries are not so recyclable especially the lithium.
:auiqs.jpg:
Clearly you dont know shit about the topic
:auiqs.jpg:
Clearly you and your ilk, are like visually impaired candidates constantly arguing about colors with those who factually can see.
Your ridiculous statements and those sharing your propagated idiocy, lend utter proof that you are one of those visually impaired candidates.
 
Speaking of talking bulls and lies........ :laughing0301:
How many coal plants go online each year in China? :eusa_whistle:


Read it and weep, Kruss. Sucks that you would feel a need to defend that.
Your propaganda isn't taken very seriously, I'm sure you understand as to why.
I am not ignorant (unlike you) about environmental issues pertaining to China's past - and present actions.

It's termed equilibrium and thus balancing the output of CO2 - in regards to the overall output of CO2, which since 2025 have resulted in China reducing it's CO2 admittance by -2%. They do not share our Western countries philosophy who believe that "immediate" action regardless of the necessary missing infrastructure and thus a negative economic impact - are suitable means.

However China has already a significant lead on Western countries in regards to renewable energy - it's necessary infrastructure aided by modern nuke plants and modern coal plants (that emit far less CO2 as previous plants).
Therefore most likely, we will not be able to catch up with them.

And you should read reports that you post!!! go and start.

But emissions from the power sector have been flat or falling since March 2024, according to analysis for Carbon Brief by CREA lead analyst Lauri Myllyvirta.
This is largely due to China’s rapid installation of renewable power, which is covering nearly all of new electricity demand and pushing coal generation into decline in 2025.
 
I am not ignorant (unlike you) about environmental issues pertaining to China's past - and present actions.

It's termed equilibrium and thus balancing the output of CO2 - in regards to the overall output of CO2, which since 2025 have resulted in China reducing it's CO2 admittance by -2%. They do not share our Western countries philosophy who believe that "immediate" action regardless of the necessary missing infrastructure and thus a negative economic impact - are suitable means.

However China has already a significant lead on Western countries in regards to renewable energy - it's necessary infrastructure aided by modern nuke plants and modern coal plants (that emit far less CO2 as previous plants).
Therefore most likely, we will not be able to catch up with them.

And you should read reports that you post!!! go and start.

But emissions from the power sector have been flat or falling since March 2024, according to analysis for Carbon Brief by CREA lead analyst Lauri Myllyvirta.
This is largely due to China’s rapid installation of renewable power, which is covering nearly all of new electricity demand and pushing coal generation into decline in 2025.

Lolz, that's what I mean about you simply not being able to connect the dots, the CREA is a "tax credit syndicate" (shell game) and the brief you linked was written by the Chinese. :auiqs.jpg:
 
Didn't Al Gore give Earth just 10 years if we didn't get off of fossil fuels???
That was back in 2008, I believe. :rolleyes-41:
:cuckoo:

He never said nor ever stated that,

he asked for a "move" towards replacing fossil energy with green energy to be "initiated" within the next 10 years.
Therefore he had given an example as to what a "political will can achieve" - citing Kennedy who despite severe critics manged to get a Moon landing done within 10 years, factually in 8.5 years.

It was others (Gas&Oil lobby) - who stated that it would be impossible to get CO2 neutral in 10 years. Something that is totally unrealistic and therefore was never propagated or stated by Al Gore.

But good enough for the Gas&Oil lobby, to fool people like you.
 
:cuckoo:

He never said nor ever stated that,

Whoops. :auiqs.jpg:

“The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis,” Gore stated."


Or are you just trying to suggest that he and the "leading experts" were lying and we can still recover, take your pick. :auiqs.jpg:
 
Last edited:
:cuckoo:

He never said nor ever stated that,

he asked for a "move" towards replacing fossil energy with green energy to be "initiated" within the next 10 years.
Therefore he had given an example as to what a "political will can achieve" - citing Kennedy who despite severe critics manged to get a Moon landing done within 10 years, factually in 8.5 years.

It was others (Gas&Oil lobby) - who stated that it would be impossible to get CO2 neutral in 10 years. Something that is totally unrealistic and therefore was never propagated or stated by Al Gore.

But good enough for the Gas&Oil lobby, to fool people like you.
:eusa_whistle:

Kruss=:cuckoo:
 
Lolz, that's what I mean about you simply not being able to connect the dots, the CREA is a "tax credit syndicate" (shell game) and the brief you linked was written by the Chinese. :auiqs.jpg:
I didn't provide that link - you dolt. Someone else did, trying to discredit China's environmental policies.
Whilst you dimwit, try to point out it was written by the Chinese. "Carbon Brief" is a UK-based journalism organization - idiot.

Stop wasting my time!! with your puberty stricken nonsense contents.
 
I didn't provide that link - you dolt. Someone else did, trying to discredit China's environmental policies.
Whilst you dimwit, try to point out it was written by the Chinese. "Carbon Brief" is a UK-based journalism organization - idiot.

Stop wasting my time!! with your puberty stricken contents.

You posted it and told the original poster they needed to read it again like that was supposed to mean something.
You cannot crawfish out of that, and your mouth is running faster than your stupid can keep up (figuratively speaking).

But you might not understand what I just posted, because you cannot connect the dots. :auiqs.jpg:


And you just marked the information I posted from the US Senate.gov "Fake News" :auiqs.jpg:
Damn you have some serious problems, chief.

I don't even know if the Chinese will want to claim you. :auiqs.jpg:
 
Last edited:
This is "THIN AIR"?

Cornell Chronicle Oct 19, 2021 — According to a survey of 88,125 climate-related studies, more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is happening

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change


why don't you get into a debate with Cornell University instead of with me? They are the ones saying it (not me)!

According to a survey of 88,125 climate-related studies, more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is happening

It always happens. It happened when the Little Ice Age cooled the planet.
It happened when the Little Ice Age ended and the planet began warming.
It will continue to change if the US continues to use fossil fuels.
It will continue to change if the US ends all use of fossil fuels.
 
:auiqs.jpg:

:auiqs.jpg:

:auiqs.jpg:
Clearly you and your ilk, are like visually impaired candidates constantly arguing about colors with those who factually can see.
Your ridiculous statements and those sharing your propagated idiocy, lend utter proof that you are one of those visually impaired candidates.
My statements were factually accurate no matter howmuch you hate it
 
Let me go ONE step further and rub your nose into your own shit.

The pic I put up came from a publication called Science Alert

Here's What Earth Might Look Like in 100 Years - if We're Lucky

ScienceAlert – Bias and Credibility​


Science Alert - Pro Science - General - Credible - Low Bias

Factual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable



PRO-SCIENCE​

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.

So now, you have the source of the pic I put up, meaning that IT IS WHAT THE SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING!

So now, your nose is into your own shit. Prove them wrong and prove me wrong, if you can. So far you have yet to provide on single article that supports your words.
Do you understand what the word MIGHT means or is it too many syllables for your pea brain to comprehend,

You keep failing
 
Do you understand what the word MIGHT means or is it too many syllables for your pea brain to comprehend,

You keep failing
Is that your response to my proving you wrong? Wow, you certainly have a "pea brain", hahahaha!

You do not have an answer do you? You are just a full of smelly hot air that talks trying to make yourself heard but always end up smelly and in the garbage dump.

Ever think of becoming a member of an asylum? You will be believed there! You should consider it. You would have no problem to being allowed to join!
 
LOL all of those are fake news Sea ice is not declining, and temperatures are right where they were predicted to be in 1900. and the models have been all wrong, they made ridicules claims like no more winter Florida under water and 2 degrees rise in temps. the sea has not risen like claimed anywhere.
Fake News, eh?

Where have I heard or seen that before? Oh, yes, here at this website with every Trump supporter saying that when presented with data, statistics and facts that don't agree with their cult beliefs.

It doesn't matter that over 80,000 articles with data, statistics, and facts have been presented by the science community! These are all made up fake news! But of course, you have not presented yourself any (not even ONE) article by a scientist that proves your point!

Why do I feel that you are one of these?

Trumpasskisser.webp
 
Fake News, eh?

Where have I heard or seen that before? Oh, yes, here at this website with every Trump supporter saying that when presented with data, statistics and facts that don't agree with their cult beliefs.

It doesn't matter that over 80,000 articles with data, statistics, and facts have been presented by the science community! These are all made up fake news! But of course, you have not presented yourself any (not even ONE) article by a scientist that proves your point!

Why do I feel that you are one of these?

View attachment 1218196
You dont know what data is or even science since I doubt you can understands a research paper
Several high-profile climate predictions made over the past decades regarding rapid sea-level rise, total ice melt, and imminent, civilization-ending disasters did not materialize on their forecasted schedules. Examples include predictions of ice-free Arctic summers by 2013-2015, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro snows within a decade, and catastrophic, immediate sea-level inundation, according to a YouTube video from Feb 18 2025 and this article from the Guardian.

  • Ice-Free Arctic Summers: Multiple predictions, including by the IPCC in 2007 and researchers in 2008-2009, projected the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013-2015. Arctic ice persists, though it has reduced in volume, according to a 2017 Ecotricity article.
  • Kilimanjaro Snows:In 2001, scientists suggested the "snows of Kilimanjaro" might disappear by 2020. While glaciers have shrunk, snow still falls, with 2024 seeing a rare, significant, and unusual snowfall
    .
    • Sea Level Inundation: Projections from the late 1980s and early 2000s, such as those featured in "An Inconvenient Truth," suggested rapid sea-level rises that would overwhelm coastal cities like New York by 2000 or soon after. While sea levels are rising, the rapid, catastrophic rate predicted has not occurred.
    • Disappearing Pacific Islands: Claims made in the late 1990s and early 2000s that some Pacific nations would be totally submerged by 2010 due to sea-level rise have not yet materialized, says a YouTube video from Feb 18 2025.
    • The "50-Day" Warning: In 2009, UK officials warned there were only "50 days to save the world" from irreversible climate catastrophe, a deadline that passed with no such event, notes a 2017 Ecotricity article.
    • Rapidly Increasing Hurricane Intensity: Claims that global warming would lead to an immediate, dramatic increase in hurricane frequency and intensity have not been supported by data showing that, since 2006, tropical cyclone energy has not shown an upward trend, according to a 2017 Ecotricity article.



Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. 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.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. 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….”

10. 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.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. 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.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.
 
15th post
You dont know what data is or even science since I doubt you can understands a research paper
Several high-profile climate predictions made over the past decades regarding rapid sea-level rise, total ice melt, and imminent, civilization-ending disasters did not materialize on their forecasted schedules. Examples include predictions of ice-free Arctic summers by 2013-2015, the disappearance of Kilimanjaro snows within a decade, and catastrophic, immediate sea-level inundation, according to a YouTube video from Feb 18 2025 and this article from the Guardian.

  • Ice-Free Arctic Summers: Multiple predictions, including by the IPCC in 2007 and researchers in 2008-2009, projected the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013-2015. Arctic ice persists, though it has reduced in volume, according to a 2017 Ecotricity article.
  • Kilimanjaro Snows:In 2001, scientists suggested the "snows of Kilimanjaro" might disappear by 2020. While glaciers have shrunk, snow still falls, with 2024 seeing a rare, significant, and unusual snowfall
    .
    • Sea Level Inundation: Projections from the late 1980s and early 2000s, such as those featured in "An Inconvenient Truth," suggested rapid sea-level rises that would overwhelm coastal cities like New York by 2000 or soon after. While sea levels are rising, the rapid, catastrophic rate predicted has not occurred.
    • Disappearing Pacific Islands: Claims made in the late 1990s and early 2000s that some Pacific nations would be totally submerged by 2010 due to sea-level rise have not yet materialized, says a YouTube video from Feb 18 2025.
    • The "50-Day" Warning: In 2009, UK officials warned there were only "50 days to save the world" from irreversible climate catastrophe, a deadline that passed with no such event, notes a 2017 Ecotricity article.
    • Rapidly Increasing Hurricane Intensity: Claims that global warming would lead to an immediate, dramatic increase in hurricane frequency and intensity have not been supported by data showing that, since 2006, tropical cyclone energy has not shown an upward trend, according to a 2017 Ecotricity article.



Tomorrow is Earth Day 2022 and marks the 52nd anniversary of Earth Day, so it’s time for my annual CD post on the spectacularly wrong predictions that were made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970…..

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now: The planet’s future has never looked better. Here’s why” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 51st anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 21 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey. Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years [by 1985 or 2000] unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis that threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [by 1980].”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. 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.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

Note: The prediction of famine in South America is partly true, but only in Venezuela and only because of socialism, not for environmental reasons.

9. 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….”

10. 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.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. 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.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980 when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.6 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,`I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Note: Global oil production last year at about 95M barrels per day (bpd) was double the global oil output of 48M bpd around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970.

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so [by 2005], it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an Ice Age.”

MP: Let’s keep those spectacularly wrong predictions from the first Earth Day 1970 in mind when we’re bombarded again this year with dire predictions of “gloom and doom” and “existential threats” due to climate change. And let’s think about the question posed by Ronald Bailey in 2000: What will Earth look like when Earth Day 60 rolls around in 2030? Bailey predicts a much cleaner, and much richer future world, with less hunger and malnutrition, less poverty, longer life expectancy, and lower mineral and metal prices. But he makes one final prediction about Earth Day 2030: “There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future – and the present – never looked so bleak.” In other words, the hype, hysteria, and spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions will continue, promoted by virtue-signaling “environmental grievance hustlers” like AOC, who said several years ago that we have “only 12 years left to stop the worst impacts of climate change.
Scientific projections, particularly climate models, have shown varying degrees of accuracy over the past 50 years, with a high overall success rate in projecting global temperature increases, though some specific, regional, or long-term predictions have missed the mark. Evaluations show that most climate models from the 1970s and later were "pretty much spot-on" when adjusted for the actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Degree of Accuracy and Key Mismatches
  • Temperature Projections: A 2019 study found that 14 out of 17 projections of global surface temperature from models published between 1970 and 2007 were indistinguishable from actual observations.
  • Early Models: Older, more rudimentary models from the 1970s generally fell within the error bars of observed warming, proving to be quite accurate.
  • "Running Hot": Some models have been found to over-predict warming, with one study claiming that some models predicted 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred between 1998 and 2014, although this is debated, with others finding high accuracy.
  • Regional Discrepancies: While global trends are often accurate, models have struggled with regional precision, such as underestimating Arctic sea ice decline or misrepresenting specific ocean circulation patterns.
  • Timing of Impacts: Some impacts, such as sea-level rise and the intensity of extreme heatwaves, have occurred faster than some earlier models predicted.
Reasons for Inaccuracies
  • Input Variables: Inaccuracies are frequently due to inaccurate assumptions about future emissions of greenhouse gases (scenarios) rather than failures in the physics of the models themselves.
  • Model Complexity: The climate system is immensely complex, and early models lacked the computing power to simulate all factors, such as cloud formation and aerosol effects, with high precision.
  • Natural Variability: Short-term, natural fluctuations (like Pacific Ocean cycles) can create discrepancies over 10-20 year periods that do not accurately reflect long-term trends.
In summary, while individual, extreme, or early "worst-case" scenarios have not always materialized, the foundational projections of global warming have proven to be largely accurate over the past few decades.
 
Scientific projections, particularly climate models, have shown varying degrees of accuracy over the past 50 years, with a high overall success rate in projecting global temperature increases, though some specific, regional, or long-term predictions have missed the mark. Evaluations show that most climate models from the 1970s and later were "pretty much spot-on" when adjusted for the actual increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Degree of Accuracy and Key Mismatches
  • Temperature Projections: A 2019 study found that 14 out of 17 projections of global surface temperature from models published between 1970 and 2007 were indistinguishable from actual observations.
  • Early Models: Older, more rudimentary models from the 1970s generally fell within the error bars of observed warming, proving to be quite accurate.
  • "Running Hot": Some models have been found to over-predict warming, with one study claiming that some models predicted 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred between 1998 and 2014, although this is debated, with others finding high accuracy.
  • Regional Discrepancies: While global trends are often accurate, models have struggled with regional precision, such as underestimating Arctic sea ice decline or misrepresenting specific ocean circulation patterns.
  • Timing of Impacts: Some impacts, such as sea-level rise and the intensity of extreme heatwaves, have occurred faster than some earlier models predicted.
Reasons for Inaccuracies
  • Input Variables: Inaccuracies are frequently due to inaccurate assumptions about future emissions of greenhouse gases (scenarios) rather than failures in the physics of the models themselves.
  • Model Complexity: The climate system is immensely complex, and early models lacked the computing power to simulate all factors, such as cloud formation and aerosol effects, with high precision.
  • Natural Variability: Short-term, natural fluctuations (like Pacific Ocean cycles) can create discrepancies over 10-20 year periods that do not accurately reflect long-term trends.
In summary, while individual, extreme, or early "worst-case" scenarios have not always materialized, the foundational projections of global warming have proven to be largely accurate over the past few decades. n
Reality also know as emprical evidence do you even know what that means invalidates all the climate predictions.
 
Is that your response to my proving you wrong? Wow, you certainly have a "pea brain", hahahaha!

You do not have an answer do you? You are just a full of smelly hot air that talks trying to make yourself heard but always end up smelly and in the garbage dump.

Ever think of becoming a member of an asylum? You will be believed there! You should consider it. You would have no problem to being allowed to join!
You did not prove me wrong you disproved yourself

You claim scietists agree with your idiotic desert planet meme and then qyote a few saying it MIGHT be.

You defeated yourself and proved me correct you moron
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom