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/

And the facts show that science doesn't know EITHER WAY. We just don't. That humility and scepticism is critical in science, otherwise it's an agenda.

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 defacto 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 “an 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.”
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 skeptics 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 contributer (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 contributer 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 actual observation, even if it refutes the hypothesis. The hypothesis must now account for 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 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 affect, 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:

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

http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-every-year-really-hottest-year.html?m=1

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

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

For example if you are of the opinion that the earth has one moon, the earth revolves around the sun etc you are already wrong. Well sort of. The politicpl world is black and white, the scientific world is nuanced, see http://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/06…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/04/sheep-science.html?m=1

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.


Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…