Skip to main content

30 years of failed climate predictions


Regarding the header cartoon, let me post some links to the papers because Google keeps removing them and young people wouldn't remember it.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.Y0AQQJii.I3TmtpHM.dpbs

And the fascinating story of the continued removal of this cold, hard fact (excuse the pun)
https://www.iceagenow.info/massive-cover-global-cooling-papers-deleted/

Internationalist Organisations like the UN and IPCC have been up their tricks for a while, their fearmongering always given a loud voice by the same globalist publications so silent on illegal wars of US regime change (far worse than any "election meddling" they cover non-stop) If the agendas of these people are not clear to you yet, I suggest pause for thought.  You probably don't even know you have been programmed.

Let's start in 1980's, in a Rothschild rag (Reuters) article referring back to the globalist chicanery already starting in the '70s.



Now Let's go back to 1989 where Associated Press platforms for the UN:
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar ice caps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of .....
Continue reading at the link below:
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0?fbclid=IwAR2a9mIj0XRGedlwZluGWU_Onctd-iCdnZihgVG-Z_yMROceZ1xOwLy4RoU
(Because there was no internet it's on an archives webpage)

But that was in 1989, surely the fearmongering has gotten better?  Not much, we'll look at some more recent examples in a moment. Meanwhile, facts show that science doesn't know EITHER WAY. We just don't. That humility and scepticism are critical in science, otherwise, it's an agenda. We also don't know if there a slice of magical pizza floating in the ether, but nobody seems to be commissioning a study on that.  We do know that Solvents, lead, mercury and toxic waste are REAL POLLUTION, there is no debate, but funding is suspiciously pulled from there to chase CO2 ghosts, CO2 being a gas vital for all plants that we all exhale.  Sounds legit...

We have heard it all before.  They are always wrong but call us science deniers.  Well, I have news for them, pay attention:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method requires hypothesis match findings when they don't the hypothesis needs scrutiny, and this is the driving force behind what we can empirically conclude to be that science always advances. Without this method the truth required to make planes fly and cell phone specs improve would not be reachable.

Religious faith has no empirical observation metrics, but we can find an empirical correlation between how religion manifests and the changing values of the culture and values of the time. Whichever we chose as metrics the values will always be influenced by the values of the current contemporary society.  The texts don't change, just the interpretation so it follows logically that the religious values of a century ago (or a century from now) will not be the same as now. This is widely accepted and is a de facto confession that nothing in faith right now can be true, it must logically qualify as a trend, or fad evolving further from the source text rather than closer to the understanding that produces the tech that works (defacto proof). The sensationalist fear-mongering in MSM from the politically guided and grant-funded Scientific community, and their MSM personalities does NOT work.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/07/21/charlatans-of-the-arctic-laughing-stock-ice-free-arctic-predictions-fake-science-at-its-best/

And perhaps that is why people have lost interest
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/21/new-gallup-poll-americans-do-not-even-mention-global-warming-as-a-problem-36-problems-cited-but-not-climate/
(here's the text below)

Germany’s Die Welt: “Ice-free” by 2013
For example, in 2007, German online national daily Die Welt here warned that “a team of international climate scientists and researchers at NASA claimed the Arctic summer would be ice-free already in 2013.
According to Die Welt, NASA’s “climate expert” Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey made the claim at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Al Gore warned in 2007, 2008 and 2009
At about the same time, climate crusader Al Gore also preached of an imminent Arctic sea ice doomsday. The New American here wrote:
In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be ‘ice-free’ by around 2013 because of alleged ‘man-made global warming.’ Citing ‘climate’ experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: ‘Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.’ Other establishment media outlets did the same.”

https://www.thegwpf.com/all-the-times-we-had-just-months-to-save-the-planet/

Sereeze on CNN Fake News: “50-50 chance” of ice-free Arctic
Not only rabid activists or hysterically mad NASA scientists were seeing visions of the end of the Arctic, but also a lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). Mark Sereeze announced on CNN in June 2008 that there was a 50-50 chance the Arctic would be ice-free by the end of the summer.
Well, at least give Sereeze credit for admitting to some uncertainty.
Hansen: Arctic ice-free in 2018 at the latest
Not long ago Tony Heller at Real Science here reported that NASA’s James Hansen said on June 23, 2008: “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path,” and that Hansen and his fellow scientists saw a tipping point occurring right before their eyes and that the Arctic was melting exactly the way they said it would.
Hansen added that the Arctic would be ice-free in 5 to 10 years. It never happened.
Spiegel: sailboats in an open Arctic in 2008
On June 27, 2008, Germany’s Der Spiegel cited scientists when it reported that the Arctic was “melting at a brutal speed”.
The German flagship weekly also quoted researcher Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Research Council: “Already last October I was predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free this summer” and “In August or September we will be seeing people cruising in sailboats up there.”
Seth Borenstein: planet has passed “an ominous tipping point”
On December 12, 2007, the AP’s Seth Borenstein reported at National Geographic that scientists were saying that the planet had “passed an ominous tipping point.” and that the Arctic was “screaming” as if it were in its death throes.
NASA’s Jay Zwally: Nearly ice-free by end of summer 2012.
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally was also cited by the National Geographic, which reported: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions’.”
John Kerry: Ice-free in 2013, not 2050
On October 16, 2009, Senator John Kerry at the Huffington Post here called climate change a “national security threat” and wrote:
It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”
Sierra Club Canada, 2013: “Ice-free this year”
However, readers will notice that the link no longer functions. Maybe the story simply became too embarrassing and so it was taken down.
The Wadhams debacle
Finally, Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, said in 2007 that Arctic sea ice would be lost by 2013. Recall that Wadhams was a renowned expert.
Six years later — in 2013 — the sea ice instead had grown by 25%! In 2012 Prof. Wadhams changed his prediction to 2016. That too never happened.
And climate alarmists are still baffled that there are sceptics out there?
Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

Since the hypothetical models and conclusions of alarmists keeps changing, and no warming has matched models, and cooling has set in, we can only conclude that it's not knowable if we affect the climate at all, but we are logically compelled to say that so far with certainty, there is a 100% probability that we are not the sole contributor (there was s climate before humans) and cannot be the most significant factor either, as stated by the cataclysmic feedback model, this claim is actually impossible and a logical fact so nobody can have a different opinion, they can only be wrong.


It is a myth that this is a debate, it's not, it is a fact that we cannot possibly know. Its proven if we agree on the current understanding of words, we have no accurate models, and the chance we are a significant contributor can't be ruled out but does not appear to be likely.

If we are looking to prove that, that is called an agenda. That correct definition of this process is a political goal. Science must without prejudice observe outcomes and describe an actual observation, even if it refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis must now account for the new observation, this is called progress even if the hypothesis fails. Truth wins. Establishment of a hypothesis as false is considered progress in science, science does value having falsehood considered true for ideological goes, that dynamic is valued in politics when you have made claims requiring funding, and it is your party that argues it is best positioned to determine policy.

Therefore anyone making the assertion that humans drive climate change that does not have proven models for the two criteria below, must according to logic, be the science denier.
1) You would need to be able to isolate and quantify every aspect contributing to climate (isolating and removing human contribution) within an agreed margin of accuracy.
2) You must be able to demonstrate which human activities affect climate, quantify them, and demonstrate a method of establishing our precise effect, and this method must be repeatable, and the results must meet the margin of error agreements.

It is not realistic to assert this is within our reach.

 This allows us to conclude with certainty that scepticism is the only Scientific conclusion. Saying the science is settled places you, by the rules of the scientific method, as a science denier. This is not debatable unless we revise the scientific method.

Lets recap: where did this all start? play clip.


My suggestion? Go a step further and collect data from their own sources before they go back and revise facts, like this example:

It still continues:
https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-un-issues-stern-warning-that-we.html

Here in this post, I give you one simple yet effective way for anyone with an internet connection to get the raw data.

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/12/reliable-collection-of-various-climate.html

And here is a more realistic idea of what is REALLY going on to help you make sense of all of this.

https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/05/climate-change-big-banking-big-oil-big.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

READ PART 2: https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2019/03/30-years-of-noaa-tide-gauge-data-debunk.html

Popular posts from this blog

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged.

In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. 

There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.


Before the reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the current crop of loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, …

How The Globalists Captured the State And The Education Curriculum

What you are about to discover should rock you to your foundations, if you excuse the pun.  Anyone who has even casually read this blog is probably somewhat on my page regarding the extent of social engineering, but if you are not familiar with this topic I assure you even the most cynical of observers will find it hard not to be shocked by the limited investigation government has actually done into  trying to establish the nature and extent of influence of powerful globalist bankers in the content and tone of the United States education system, which prevails now in many parts of the neoliberal world order and extends beyond curriculum to identity politics and issues such as climate change.

In 1952 a little knownSelect Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives between 1952 and 1954.[1] The committee was originally created by House Resolution 561 during the 82nd Congress. The…