Skip to main content

30 years of failed climate predictions

Regarding the header cartoon, let me post some links to the papers upfront because Google keeps removing them and (based on the amount of feedback I've received from enraged people claiming "those were never predictions") young people wouldn't remember them.

And the fascinating story of the continued removal of this cold, hard fact (excuse the pun)

Here is the sort of deliberate planning

And before I go back in time let's get a handle the current media situation, which is QUANTUM CLIMATE CHANGE. That's right, welcome to the bizarre world of climate change where, somehow, everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!

Leonard Nimoy's (Spock from Star Trek) special on the upcoming Ice-Age in 1979

Shall we start looking back at all the major media publications going back over 30 years?

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:
(Because there was no internet it's on an archives web page)

What about:

We have heard it all before.  They are always wrong but call anyone pointing out the errors "science deniers".  Well, I have news for them, that is not how it works, they have it ass about face.  A science denier is someone whose theory has no predictive success, but refuses to let observation and the real world factor in on his conclusion.  A science denier uses models and "strong theoretical evidence"... whatever that is supposed to be.

I hope everyone is clear on the criteria?  Lets continue.

And just in case you have any doubt as to the above, here is a wonderful little video of media fails retarding the yearly lies that the Arctic ice is about to melt, contrasted with the ACTUAL yearly Arctic ice sheet. Settled science you say?  The only thing that is inconvenient is the thirty million dollars George Soros advanced Al Gore in 2004 to spread his inconvenient lie to the world.

Al gore: The Arctic will be Ice-Free by 2013!

And perhaps this ongoing farce is why people have lost interest in this matter which never manifests in reality, and only exists in the lies of the MSM, the warmongering, globalist owned big 6 media... Think about it.
(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.”

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.”

The Washington Post is such a serious offender when it comes to to climate lies I've devoted a clip to them:

Similarly, The New York Times has invented a fake climate history to match its fake geopolitical history.

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.

"Michael Mann is an unrepentant and belligerent  Technocrat who deceived the whole world with his so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature model. His humiliation in a Canadian court should be a fatal blow to the entire climate change scam. Defying a judges direct order, Mann has refused to provide his data for public scrutiny.  TN Editor"

All this fudged data is criminal. 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:

And from GISS (often as NASA GISS)

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

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



Popular posts from this blog

🔵 Plasma Cosmology, Electric Universe© & Thunderbolts Project Tutorials

If you are like me, someone with a keen interest all things science, you may feel a certain degree of resistance to these ideas after so much exposure to the science of "Big-Bang" cosmology (The LAMBDA-CDM model) and all the spin that comes with it.  I would urge you to overcome those feelings if your sense of certainty gives you the need to dismiss this science out of hand.  That would be an unfortunate error in judgement that will cost you a rich source of the most elegant and powerfully predictive science currently available. 

If you are indeed willing to open your mind to these findings you will open yourself up to the extraordinary explanatory powers of Plasma Cosmology and most of the dead ends in science will suddenly seem like new horizons.  This is an extremely well backed up discipline but its not immune to errors, and has a healthy appetite for reviewing its own body of work.   

It encourages speculation but always makes it perfectly clear when it is speculating.  S…

🔵 A stunning revision of the past which could be as unbelievable as any science fiction blockbuster.

"What if the defining catastrophe of the  human part of world history has no observable equivalent occurrences today? Surely we would entirely leave it out of our picture?"

According to Wikipedia, which represents the establishment view of most matters, the substance and starting point of our history is as follows:
"The history of the world, in common parlance, is thehistory of humanity(orhuman history), as determined fromarchaeology,anthropology,genetics,linguistics, and other disciplines; and, for periods since theinvention of writing, fromrecorded historyand fromsecondary sourcesand studies. Humanity's written history was preceded by its prehistory, beginning with the Palaeolithic Era ("Early Stone Age"), followed by the Neolithic Era ("New Stone Age"). The Neolithic saw the Agricultural Revolution begin, between 8000 and 5000 BCE, in the Near East's Fertile Crescent. During this period, humans began the systematic husbandry of plants and ani…