Walla Walla Dawg II wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 2:16 pm
Here are ten more corkers:
1. In 1974 TIME magazine led the charge on the coming new Ice Age: “The tell-tale signs are everywhere – from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland, to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.”
2. In 1989 Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist who testified before Congress the previous year to the “Greenhouse effect”, predicted that New York’s Westside Highway would be underwater by 2019.
3. Of the thirty-two models of the earth’s changing temperature that have been published by climate scientists since the late 70s, not a single one has come close to being correct after 1995 (see image below).
4. In 2000 Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, predicted that within a few years snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
5. In 2002 The Guardian published an article in its Global Development feature - which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - which stated that famine within 10 years “can only be avoided if the rich give up meat, fish and dairy.”
6. In 2004 The Guardian obtained what it described as a “secret report … suppressed by US defence chiefs” that stated that climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism. It predicted that there would be a global catastrophe, with rioting, nuclear war and Britain living in a “Siberian climate by 2020”.
7. In 2008 James Hansen, the scientist who is held up by climate change politicians as a “climate prophet”, predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2018, stating: “We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes.”
8. Not one to be outdone, former presidential candidate Al Gore predicted, in the same year, that the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice-free by 2013. Professor Peter Wadhams, who authored a paper for Nature magazine on the costs of Arctic warming, made the same prediction but plumbed for 2015. The US Navy’s Department of Oceanography, meanwhile, said it would occur in 2016.
9. In 2009 Prince Charles announced that the world had just 8 years to save the planet. The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, begged to differ, stating: “We have fewer than 50 days to save our planet from catastrophe.” (Perhaps he was confusing the planet with the catastrophe of his premiership?)
10. With typical French cartesianism, the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius stated at a meeting with John Kerry in Washington in 2014 that there were, in fact, precisely “500 days to avoid climate chaos”.
Activate to view larger image,
diagram
Reminiscent of ddraig's earlier post. From the article that he linked to:
Regarding data or forecasts, your first question has to be "what's the error range?" If you don't know the error range, the data are almost useless. It's not coincidental that the Climate Mafia don't highlight this problem
So what about modern technology solving these problems? These error problems are still true today. It's not that the long-term temperature forecasts are wrong; it's that they can't be right. All global warming modelers know this, or they are incredibly stupid, or they just lie about it for money or power.
When the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made even a pretense of being science-based, they used to admit it. From the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."
The weather is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system. Chaos theory says very small changes in inputs can result in totally different outcomes. This concept is counterintuitive for most people. We intrinsically think that if you're a little off at the beginning, you should be a little off at the end. Try that on a mountain trail next to a cliff.
The Climate Mafia know that this is true, but they still want money and power. They argue that even though you can't make a real temperature forecast, they can create a completely bogus forecasting approach, where they take a bunch of different climate models that don't agree (so much for settled science) and combine their outputs. They then say voilà: we have a correct prediction, and they use pseudo-statistics to get around the error problem. The way I visualize it is, if you take a bunch (an ensemble sounds more scientific) of wrong answers and then combine them, that is the right answer. Absurd.
Since your input data are critical to forecasting the Chaotic Future, fully understanding past temperatures is also critical. The Climate Mafia create the entirely bogus concept of an "average Earth temperature" to create a bogus base data set for their bogus models. The Warming Scammers like to use a garbage temperature history that starts about 1850. The Scammers say that their increased temperatures since 1850, just coincidentally at the end of a three-hundred-year cooling cycle, represent the rise of the industrial pollution age. In 1850, and even in 1950, only a small percentage of world's population could even be considered close to industrialized. Look at India, Africa, and China then: almost medieval energy use patterns until really recently. Humans have been around in their current form for many tens of thousands of years. To say the weather since the 1850s is representative of anything from a statistical perspective is a joke.
So what kind of temperature data do we have since 1850?
With oceans and ice caps covering over 80+% of the world's surface, we have virtually no reliable long-term data on any of that, other than the last few decades. Even then, you are talking about a relatively small number of measuring devises in all those places. (Do you check the weather a few hundred miles away to know if you need an umbrella?) How about the temperature trends in deserts, on mountains, in the middle of Africa, South America, Siberia — at sea level, a hundred feet elevation, a thousand feet elevation? The data are so bad in all of the Southern Hemisphere — half the globe — that there are only a few datasets even close to reliable since the 1850s. There are almost no real, reliable, and complete long-term data globally, and particularly none reliable enough to create model of a chaotic system entirely dependent on very accurate input data.
