Failed predictions

02/08/2019 11:26 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Since the start of the Global Warming scare numerous predictions have been made about all kind of things related to the climate. As this scam is going on for over 30 years now some of those predictions have reached their due date and the time has come to check the results.

Climate author Javier made a convincing collection of the main climate predictions made by alarmists, complete with referenced links to both the original prediction as well as the outcome.

The predictions came from recognized institutions and organizations like the UN, the IPCC, the NASA, the University of East Anglia (of Climategate fame), NOAA, Max Planck Institute and a long etcetera on the following subjects:
  • Warming rate predictions
  • Temperature predictions
  • Winter predictions
  • Snow predictions
  • Precipitation predictions
  • Extreme weather predictions
  • Wildfire predictions
  • Rotation of the Earth predictions
  • Arctic sea ice predictions
  • Polar bear predictions
  • Glacier predictions
  • Sea level predictions
  • Sinking nations predictions
  • Food shortage predictions
  • Climate refugee predictions
  • Climate change casualty predictions
  • Time running out predictions

They're all so-called "experts", they all predicted, published their predictions and failed. And not just a little bit. In some cases the exact opposite happened.
Why are they not held accountable for their failures? And the most important question is: when will we learn not to listen to those "scientists"?

This doesn't look like settled science to me... At all.

And worst of all, our governments are basing their policy on the same flawed models that produced these predictions.

This is a must-read:

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference in order to decide of the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

The "Green Lungs of the Earth" Myth

This must be the environmental myth with the deepest roots of them all (pun intended). It's compulsory subject matter in public schools around the globe, it's passed from generation to generation and if you dare to question it in public, disbelieve, rejection, jeering and even exclusion from the conversation will be your treat. That's the typical way people react when their beliefs and primary "knowledge" are challenged.

The myth:

Woods, forests and jungles are Earth's "Green Lungs" that generate and produce the oxygen we need to breath and live.

Glacier Logic

Last month, the New York Times website published a page titled "Glaciers Are Retreating. Millions Rely on Their Water." It shows a dramatic image, zooming out of a person walking down a dry glacier bed with the following text:

"In Central Asia, a warming climate is shrinking the Tuyuksu glacier. It’s losing ice every year.

Around the world, vanishing glaciers will mean less water for people and crops in the future."

Climate models

Computer models are something magical. As powerful computers, located at famous universities and authoritative government agencies are involved, model output is often considered to be a substitute for reality.

But it's not.

450 non-warming graphs and papers

Notrickszone presents a collection of 450 peer-reviewed scientific papers that question Global Warming Part 1 / Part 2. The collection contains a representative graphic from each paper. For some of the papers, a short excerpt of the conclusions is added.

Most of the papers have been written after the year 2000. They contain studies from the whole Holocene interglacial, but most of the work concentrates on the last 2,000 years.

Sustainable - Contamination

You can't make this up

Firewood is considered "biomass", and politicians seem to believe that the CO2 produced by burning biomass is different from CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. They also believe CO2 is a dangerous contaminant.

So, according to the UN, the IPCC and your national government (depending on where you live), firewood cooking is considered "sustainable", while cooking with natural gas is "contamination".