25 Years of Failed Global Warming Predictions

Trump's rejection of the Paris Climate Accord is all the rage for so-called "environmentalists" the world over. But what did they say in years gone by? Pretty much the same thing - all wrong.
ChemicalEngineer
____________________
25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25-years-of-predicting-the-global-warming-tipping-point/
MICHAEL BASTASCH

For decades now, those concerned about global warming have been predicting the so-called “tipping point” — the point beyond which it’ll be too late to stave off catastrophic global warming.

It seems like every year the “tipping point” is close to being reached, and that the world must get rid of fossil fuels to save the planet. That is, until we’ve passed that deadline and the next such “tipping point” is predicted.

Would you believe it was eight years ago today that the United Nations predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.” This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. from issuing more apocalyptic predictions since.

To celebrate more than two decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation presents this list of some of the “greatest” predictions made by scientists, activists and politicians — most of which we’ve now passed.




1. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
World leaders meeting at the Vatican last week issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis will likely reiterate that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming… since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

9. The “tipping point” warning first started in 1989
In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 15 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

 

The problem with your post is that many of these predictions are about the temperature in 2100 or an irreversible rise in temperature in the next few decades so you can't call them failed. Another problem is that many of these people are politicians not actual climate scientists who are basing their claims on accepted peer-reviewed studies.

 

Like these?

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

 

The problem IMO is that we have politicized and ... "angerized" (thoughts on my new made up word?) any single issue that there is to discuss.

Anyone who is worried about going to far and damaging the economy is a "climate denier" and an evil person

Meanwhile anyone who fights for everything Climate Change is called a cultist or whatever else.

I personally think the Paris Accords go to far to that of the US and leave a lot of countries alone with MUCH less stringent policies.

While I do think we need to be very conscious of our climate and be as clean as possible, I would like to see several key changes to the Accords. Even saying this gets people to literally start screaming and calling me stupid among many other horrible names.

Thus, completely shutting down the conversation and making me walk away from the table at all

I am becoming more and more of an advocate of a civil war, strain out some of the idiots form the country.

 

Will you at least concede that there have been hundreds of "the world is ending" studies and none of them have come close to coming true?

We hear every 3 years that we have "crossed the point of no return", it is tough to continue to have faith in these studies that prove to be false and seem ridiculously inflated in their predictions

 

What routine propaganda garbage from Denialists!

The sheer weight of miscellaneous and very often irrelevant peer-reviewed studies in this story is huge but pointless - it is simply to make everyone supposed us realize that we better get our coats out for the soon to come global cooling!

Sadly, to actually read these studies, they do not make these Denialist point at all!

We read studies that say that a ocean current in part of the North America may produce cooler water in the Atlantic for affecting land temps along the coasts! What does that have to do with GLOBAL WARMING that one area gets cooler, somewhere is getting warmer but apparently Denialists think the whole world is simply the USA and Western Europe!

We read studies that say that a particular ice floe in one part of Antarctic just maybe slow the overall rise of many feet of sea-level rise may ameliorate .02 cm of that rise! Maybe. Wow!! Burn, baby, burn , it's going to be cold outside according to Trump's troops!

Let's notice that Denialists now need to resort to 2008 propaganda like Pete's Place from ancient studies from 1990 to 2001. And, furthermore, somehow Pete seemed to ignore studies that were current when this 2008 propaganda Pete's Place was penned that would have his kinds of stories seem as wrong or out of date as they actually are.

Try harder, Denialists! Even oil companies don't believe that kind of malarkey anymore!

 

LOL you look at a link to a study that supports your position and are completely convinced but ignore all the studies that conflict with your politics.

 

List out the studies that predicted the world was going to end now or in the past because of global warming that were peer reviewed and gained wide-spread acceptance.

But as we found in the OP most of the people saying this are politicians not actual scientists. Also, the only way to refute this prediction is for temperatures to stop rising when we control CO2 emissions.

 

And Hillary in a landslide . Lol. Wow , they don't even realize how utterly ridiculous they are.

 

The Republican Party is the only major political party on Earth that still denies climate change. Between them and Trump, American conservatism is laughingstock of humanity, forever.

 

The world, industry, and the vast majority of climate experts, have all accepted AGW as real and significant.

About the only people in the world who don't accept it are people who don't know the first thing about science. A good many of those never voted before - about 40% of the voters are holding the world hostage. Republicans have betrayed all of humanity, mainly out of ignorance, but also out of arrogance.

You have destroyed 70 years of alliances. America is no longer seen as a leader. I have to laugh when Trump asked today, "When do other countries start laughing at us?" I know exactly when they started laughing - the day Trump got elected.

You are all playing Holiday Inn experts. If you want to argue about the climate, get an education and publish a paper. Until then, stop making fools of yourselves. You are an embarrassment to the entire planet and you are the only ones who don't know it.

 

The first time in human history that the entire world could agree on something, less two countries, and the Republicans told the world to go to hell. Truly despicable.

Lying crackpot-Donald says it will help industry. But industry is condemning his actions. Even companies like Mobile Oil no longer try to deny AGW. Nope, just the Holiday-Inn Republicans

 

The many valid points in this response are being ignored by those that wish to politicize it.

An honest discussion cannot be had because anyone not fully on board with all things climate change, including the things grouped in with climate change but have nothing to do with the climate, are labeled anti science morons.

I've said a few times that I'm a skeptic. I do believe the Earth is warming. I do think the burning of fossil fuels is a factor. Where I disagree is that I also believe human population, deforestation, and Earths natural cycle are every bit as significant.

 

Civil War is not the answer to your dilemma, for idiots are not the only people killed in civil wars.

 

Baseless hysteria isn't helping you, or your cause, at all.

 

Of the three causes you mentioned last, two (human population and deforestation) are caused by humans, adding to the measure of global warming caused by humans, which is the primary argument of scientists today. If humans caused it, then possibly humans can have an affect reversing it? The world is what WE make it!

 

Do you advocate waiting until we actually DO cross the point of no return before you decide we should act? Predicting future events is always hazardous, even when based on scientific data. We're all human and susceptible to errors, but all these failed predictions combined don't negate the underlying fact that Global Warming is happening and over time will have disastrous effects on our planet and its inhabitants unless we counter it somehow.

 

Back in 2008 Al Gore said the Arctic Ocean would be ice free. But then he also said he invented the internet. What a liar.

 

I dont see many scientists advocating for genocide to get global population down though, which is why I group it with the natural causes which arent being given much, if any, consideration amid the hysteria.

 

There are too many variables to model and then they convert things other than CO2 to "carbon equivalents" which throws everything off even more. We will be fine. Penguins might not be, but humans don't eat them, so no big deal.

 

Al gore was just a crook who tried to use global warming as a way to get back in the political game. And I say that while being thinking that global warming is true and caused by humans.

 

It just proves that not everyone is a sheep following mass hysteria.

Solar scientists say cooling is coming. Since they are not part of the mass hysteria they're called deniers.

 

Was there more or less life on earth when Antarctica was free of ice?

Now after you answer that question with the factual answer, how can you be AGAINST climate change?

 

Let me tell you what's "truly despicable." Obviously you have no idea.
What's "despicable" is:

1. Democrats promoting the racism of abortion, which murders 1,000,000 unborn babies every year, a disproportionate number of them black babies.
2. Democrats promoting race warfare and class warfare, day in and day out, through Fake News, and lies and hatred and condenscension such as you and your friends here demonstrate so arrogantly and pretentiously.
3. Democrats claiming to be oh-so-scientific, like their/your god, Al Gore, who is a real ignoramus. I will provide a few of his ignorant remarks in his best known book, Earth in the Balance.
4. Democrats, fawning over someone as evil, as hateful, as incompetent, as dishonest and contemptible as Hillary Clinton, who laughed when she bragged about defending Thomas Petersen, rapist of a 12-year-old girl. She bragged about getting him "off with only 10 months in jail." He should have been hung in the public square, but Democrats don't give a **** about little girls being raped or unborn babies being butchered by Planned Parenthood.
5. Democrats are roiling in hatred, rioting in the streets, attacking and threatening anyone who doesn't march in fascist lockstep with them.

THAT is despicable, each and every one, and of course there are thousands of instances which could be cited.

Now for Al Gore's published ignorance, Earth in the Balance.
We begin on page 3. Gore laments that eight acres worth of prime topsoil “floats” past Memphis every hour. Topsoil does not float. Were President Trump to say such a thing, liberals would howl derisively and cite his stupidity. Liberals excuse away their own verbal gaffes as trivial, and call themselves intelligent.

Page 5: .the concentrations of CO2 were increasing rapidly each year (at Mauna Loa Observatory) ”

[Gore calls a .00036 annual increase “rapid.” (1.36 ppm / 380)]

P 19: “I was standing in the sun on a hot steel deck. We were anchored…”

[Not exactly. For as Gore said a sentence later, there was nothing but hot dry sand in all directions. The Aral Sea had long since receded from this place, and a stranded boat is not said to be anchored. One anchors only in water. Nobody has a boat anchored in his back yard.]

P 30: “…with the addition of one China’s worth of people every ten years”

[One China’s worth of people. Liberals can get by with such verbal abuses. But the hated group they call “neocons” never can.]

P 47 “Aficionados of the symphony, for example, recognize a crescendo as the point of maximum instability in a piece of music”

[ I happen to be an aficionado of classical music, and have never before heard of "aficianados of the symphony." But I know that crescendo means the gradual increase in volume. Nor is a crescendo a point but rather can cover quite a wide range. Maurice Ravel wrote an entire piece in crescendo, called Bolero.]

P 119 "A ravenous civilization”
[Three yew trees must be cut down to save a woman's life. Are we untitled to do so? No, Al cares more about three yew trees. Let her die. Three trees mean much more than a woman's life to Al Gore and people like him.]

P 121 "The US actually has more forested land than it did a hundred years ago.”
[BUT "reforestation of public lands (is an ) ecological tragedy.” Gore makes no sense, but his fawning millions lap up his ignorance nonetheless.]

P 146 “Each person in the U.S. produces an average of twenty tons of CO2 each year.”
[Al produces far more than this with his globetrotting to Russia, Antarctica, the Arctic Ocean, Amazon Rain Forest, Equatorial Africa, Caribbean, Kenya, Louisiana, Atlanta, and even Mount Rainier where he flew his son on Air Force 2 for his birthday. What blatant hypocrisy.]

 

Dear Genius,
Is Black Panthers a proper noun? If so, why didn't you capitalize "panthers"?
On the subject of "hate group(s)", look in the mirror. You and all your Democrat friends, Fake News, Cathy Gifford, college professors and kiddies who adore socialist Bernie Sanders, all of you epitomize hate groups.

How can you be AGAINST facts and common sense? Quite simply. You buy in to race-baiting, class warfare, socialist narratives.