Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

If this wasn’t such a serious topic, this would be pretty damn funny. What a farce.

In an article on their website, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is building on the work done by RealClimateScience.com to compile a shaming list of dire apocalyptic environmental predictions over the years, NONE of which came true.

Global warming, a coming ice age, holes in the ozone, acid rain, rising sea levels, capitalism and consumerism all, at one time or another, spelled doom to the earth and humanity.

How about this one from The Guardian in 2004: “Climate Change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters … A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.” Clearly the doomsday clock struck midnight, and nobody heard it. No wonder they suppressed the report.

postmortem: The Climate Apocalypse referenced in the above 2004 Guardian piece officially bites the dust. It was fun while it lasted.

As the references on both sites make clear, the predictions aren’t necessarily made by cranks, but by mainstream voices, typically holding respected positions in government and science. Except, of course, Al Gore who made millions trading in the market for carbon offsets, while beating the drum about man-caused climate change.

After decades of fake science with their doom and gloom predictions, its time to stand up and refuse to be manipulated. But there is just too much money to be made milking the always on the horizon apocalypse.

Time to wake up people. Man-made climate change is fake science. Its a control thing, meant to subjugate humanity. Given to us by the same ruling class that seeks to subjugate us with globalism.

Is Global Warming the biggest fraud in history? Watch this video and consider your answer.

p.s. oh, and Trump agrees

Extinction Rebellion: “… some may die in the process”

Extinction Rebellion leader Gründer Roger Hallam: “We’re going to force the governments to act. And if they don’t, we will bring them down and create a democracy fit for purpose. And yes, some may die in the process. “

Climate alarmist group Extinction Rebellion is fascist. Flat out fascist. Hallam is advocating bringing down elected governments by force, and yes, even killing people to satisfy their political goals. Chaos. Anarchy. Nihilism. Tools of the trade.

Where have we heard that before? Benito Mussolini = Fascist Italy. Hitler = Nazi Germany. Mao Zedong = Communist China.

Compare and contrast Nazi Germany brown-shirts with fascist Italy black-shirts with Antifa black-shirts. Its deja vu all over again.

People … its time to wake up to what is really going on here. Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, Climate Activism, Impeaching Trump, et al are political efforts to overthrow democratic government and install fascist, totalitarian regimes. Globalism, Progressivism are code-words for Fascism and population control. See it for what it is. Reject it.

“Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it” — George Santayana

As a related addendum, here is a good interview by BBC’s Andrew Neil with one of Extinction Rebellion’s talking heads. Neil challenges ERs talking point that climate change is going to cause the death of billions of people in the next 10 to 20 years. When confronted with the total lack of valid evidence that such an outcome is possible, the ER person says, “unfortunately, alarmist language works.”

Neil further challenges ERs target for zero emissions by 2025 and what it would take to reach that goal. Basically, burning of any fossil fuels would need to stop, which essentially means all economic actity — airplane travel, cooking and heating with gas etc. ER responds that experts would need to look at these things. But when confronted by Neil that experts have, and presenting data to the contrary, ER faults that data and points to more acceptable experts e.g. totally discredited Michael Mann. What a farce.

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg

Title says it all. Read this

Here also is an interview with Dr Tim Ball, who talks about the climate change hoax and Greta Thunberg’s unfortunate (for her) role in promoting the hoax. Dr Ball was the climate scientist who called out Michael Mann’s hockey stick as fake science, was sued by Mann in BC court, and unequivocally won (including damages) when Mann refused to present his data and algorithms in court as demanded by the presiding judge. A cold day in hell for climate activists.

On Greta, Ball accuses her mother of child abuse for putting a child with acknowledged mental health issues on the world stage in this manner. He doesn’t blame Greta for anything she says, but the people and organization behind her, including the UN and its IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

The wide-ranging interview with Ball is enlightening and important. It should be transcribed and distributed broadly. He discusses the conspiracy and corruption behind the climate debate, its genesis being in the ’60s with the Club of Rome. Soros tends to be identified as the boogie man manipulating issues like this behind the scenes, but he is the face of a largely faceless Club of Rome with founding uber-rich guy David Rockefeller. For people like Soros and the Rockefellers, it is not about wealth, it is about power and control. The climate debate uses the environment to control the people. There is lots more to be concerned about than CO2 emissions.

Two basic ideals that are now under attack are free will and free speech. Nowhere else in the world are these ideals as staunchly defended than the USA and within Christianity. But, we have progressives and progressive-run tech platforms actually censoring conservative voices and patrolling free speech. What is fake news? Basically, we are at the point where actual facts are attacked and debunked when it doesn’t suit the progressive narrative, of which the climate debate is one of many topics. When you can no longer separate truth from lies, there is no truth. Shut down the free flow of ideas and information and we all die in darkness.

Climate Science Math

I’m not sure how the math works here.

Dutifully reported by the CBC, according to a Canadian report on climate ( Canada’s Changing Climate Report (CCCR)), “Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average, according to a new government report. ”

Hmm. Okay. But how does that explain this. Botalia Morpheus: “After going through many headlines today, I’ve learned that that the entire planet is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet.”

If you haven’t taken a look at the link, Natalia Mateo put together a twitter thread that lists countries, regions and geography (e.g. mountains) that are reported to be experiencing rising temperatures at higher than average rates. Twice the average rate is pretty common: Sweden, Russia, the arctic, Norway, South Africa, Tibet, all of Africa, mountains in general, China, Alaska, Japan, Korea, Iceland, Britain, Adirondacks, Spain, Australia, Finland, the Himalayas, and Singapore.

Now, clearly, that’s not the whole world, but it certainly suggests a big chunk of the surface of the earth. So … who is bringing down the average? According to this “science” the rest of the earth is warming at below the average rate, to establish the average. Or perhaps even cooling. After all, we are talking about averages and it has to balance out on the other side.

Taking this information at face value (which would be folly), if all these regions are increasing at a rate greater than everyone else, shouldn’t the reporting actually be that Canada et al are increasing at the average rate. But, of course, that won’t suit the climate alarmist narrative. And I am certain the data is not there to support such a contention.

More cooking the data it looks like. Perhaps that is why temperatures are rising.

Update 280220: And this just in … “Alberta will warm faster than the rest of the planet because of human activity, causing a range of profound impacts on the province’s economy, infrastructure and public health, says a new report, prepared by climate scientists and published on a provincial government website.”

No, not as reported on the Babylon Bee. How is this even possible? Micro-climate alarmism? So Alberta is going to warm faster than its neighbors British Columbia and Saskatchewan? Surely, even climate alarmists must agree this is absurd.

When Climate Data does not suit the Narrative, Change the Data

The Canadian government is omitting and deleting 100 years of actual observed climate data in favor of climate models. Its clear that the pesky real data that does not support the climate alarmist narrative the Trudeau government wants to promote is better deleted and forgotten.

The temperature data is part of a new website by Climate Change Canada meant to be used by policymakers to “support and enable Canada’s climate change adaptation planning, and improve access to relevant climate data.” i.e. It will be used for developing official government policy.

Cataloged temperature measurements collected between 1850-1949, real observed, collected temperature data, were replaced by data from 24 models and historical simulations based on data collected from 1950-2005. i.e., the actual historical data was replaced in the models by modeled data extrapolated from a period a century later.

The inconvenient truth is that the actual data doesn’t reflect the official climate alarmist narrative supported by the Trudeau government:

  • Vancouver was hotter in 1910 than it was in 2017;
  • Toronto was warmer in 1852 than it was in 2017;
  • Moncton was 4 degrees warmer in 1906 than in 2017;
  • Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017;
  • The hottest temperate ever recorded in Canada happened before 1950 – September 15, 1937, saw a high of 45 degrees Celsius in Yellow Grass, Saskatchewan – which meant it was also excluded from the new climate change website.

Yet another example of climate activism fudging the data to suit the narrative.

This follows a similar story from 2009 about the University of East Anglia’s (Norwich, England) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being forced to reveal it had tossed actual data in favor of modeled data, following requests for the data under FOIA. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

What’s really galling in the CRU case is the lame excuse used for the destruction of the data was the need to save space. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were tossed (i.e. destroyed) when the CRU moved to a new building.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

… and don’t get me started about Michael Mann. Sheesh! Mr climate hockey stick, father of global warming alarmism, took Canadian climate scientist Dr Tim Ball to court for libel. Dr Ball basically outed Mann as a charlatan. In trial, Mann defied the court, refusing a direction by the British Columbia (Canada) Supreme Court to turn over data and methodology relating to his, now infamous and thoroughly discredited, Hockey Stick chart. Mann was found in contempt, and must pay Dr Ball’s court costs. In addition to the rather substantial financial penalty, the judgement essentially establishes Mann’s hockey stick as debunked, indefensible hokum. i.e. Fake Climate Data. This is the way climate alarmism will end, not with a bang, but a whimper. And so it goes …

update 090120: Australian climate scientist Jennifer Marohasy discusses how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has deleted actual temperature recordings and consistently fudged data, i.e. “cooled the past” to validate the global warming narrative.

“There is no climate emergency”

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

There is no climate emergency … climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools … there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent … therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

The letter further declares that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” they decared.

Finally, climate scientists are attempting to bring rationality and real science back to the discussion. Methinks a hyperventilating 16-year old was one prop too far.

update 181019: Whom to BelieveThe website Climate Feedback presents itself as ” … a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.” As far as I can tell, their main objective is attempting to invalidate climate skeptic articles. Fair enough.

But what are you to make of “Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science.” The article refers to the recent letter to the UN signed by 500 scientists, stating unequivocally that “There is No Climate Emergency.” The article starts off with “the claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change …”

In this article, and throughout the website, the reviewers empower science as the arbiter in the climate change debate, and the importance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. So these 500 scientist are in fact charlatans, not backing their statements with real science? Or perhaps more to the point, it is science that does not suit the climate alarmist narrative espoused by Climate Feedback contributors. As far as I can tell, there is not a single article on the site that does not endorse the climate alarmist narrative. How can that be possible, unless the contributors themselves are shilling for that narrative.

e.g. A recurring point in a number of the articles is to just stick your head outside and observe. Melting glaciers, shrinking sea ice, rising sea levels et al … wait … Ahh, rising sea levels. Google it yourself. Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years, as we moved out of the ice age (neanderthals must have been lighting too many fires and mammoths farting too much). But over the last few decades, rising sea levels have slowed considerably, way below average. How does that suit the narrative? Try to make sense of sea ice shrinking and expanding. What is the trend? These experts continuously accuse others of cherry-picking data, and yet preach using their own version of the truth. Yes, whom to believe.

Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura has spent decades studying cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. He has published 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics. He is what one would call an expert on climate science.

Dr Nakamura is one of an increasing number of climate scientists who are taking a stand against the shrill bullying of the man-made climate change crowd. In June, he published a small book in Japanese on “the sorry state of climate science”. It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

Quadrant Online has published an article that neatly summarizes Dr Namamura’s position. That, while climate models are useful tools for academic studies, “the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.” He further states, “I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English.”

He projects warming from CO2 doubling, “according to the true experts”, to be only 0.5degC. Hardly the existential climate event we are told we are faced with.

On a related note, last year, Dr Jordan Peterson had some interesting views on climate change. In this conversation, he references the work of Bjorn Lomberg to understand how, when you prioritize the myriad issues we are faced with to actually improve the world and the lives of its inhabitants, addressing climate change does not make the short list. Read Lomberg’s recent article in The Australian, “A Climate of Burning Money” to begin to understand the nature of the fraud that is being perpetrated on us. And here is a Tucker Carlson interview with Lomberg.

There are powerful, hidden players beating this drum to their own selfish ends, and ruthlessly trying to censor critics. The lead off in Tony Heller’s video below quotes Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, from 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy anymore … We (UN-IPCC) redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” As always, follow the money.

Tony Heller’s Gift To Climate Alarmists

Tony Heller compiles a list of highly selective data presentations climate alarmists use to present their case. As you can see, the actual data in its true historical context presents a much different story than the narrative the climate alarmists use to browbeat skeptics. The lead off quote by Dr Ottmar Enderhofer is likely the most revealing as to what is actually at play here.

In October 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted in a news conference that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Mike Shedlock (aka Mish) decompresses Heller’s video and adds some more context, thoroughly exposing climate alarmist agenda for what it is — a fraud. In fact, at the root of it is financial fraud.

As always, follow the money.