Thread: 4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

(I was a middle school student when our teachers, especially our science teachers, terrified us with visions of a year 2000 marked by millions dead from pollution, a new ice age, and mass starvation. They encouraged us to watch dystopian movies like Soylent Green. Does anyone else remember being subjected to this propaganda and taken for mandatory participation in Earth Day marches? Looking back, I realize what lefty globalist grammar and middle school teacher were. )

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don't know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.

https://fee.org/articles/4-catastrophic-climate-predictions-that-never-came-true/

Yes, I remember earth day 1970, by 1975 they had us participating in nature studies and in school they predicted chlorofluorocarbon would eat up all the ozone allowing ionizing radiation to fry us at the same time they said there would be another ice age! Typical paradoxical oxymoron education, and I wonder why I'm so fucked up?

I got news for them, the sky is still blue, the snow still melts, and everything's still alive and carrying on as usual! They also preached overpopulation and how important birth control (abortion) was.

I think they should be mashed up, pressed into patties, fried, and turned to soylent green!

I trust nothing that environmentalist lot has to say. Environmentalism isn't a science, it's a religion. It's cost us money, jobs, and even human lives.

Besides, proving a theory requires a control group where the variable in question (mankind and its inventions) is not present. In this case, that would mean a duplicate earth in a duplicate orbit with a duplicate atmosphere, minus mankind. On that basis alone, mankind's ability to affect the environment can never be proven.

Like everything else liberal/socialist/communist, it's not about the environment, it's about control. Every big lib issue is about control. Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Un, Hitler, take your pick. Pure filth, right along with every two-ounce-brained individual who subscribes to this nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjcdMU2itv8

John Ward

[COLOR=var(--yt-spec-text-secondary)]Published on Sep 7, 2019



SUBSCRIBED [COLOR=var(--yt-formatted-string-deemphasize-color)]167K[/COLOR]




You've heard of "Climate Change," and you've probably heard of its predecessor "Global Warming" - but unless you lived through the 1970s, you may not remember the MSM/Liberal/Academic scam that mothered them all: Global Cooling.The entire world-wide con of the working class via "Climate Change" started (if you don't count Mayan sacrifices) in 1972, with a now-infamous (and hilarious) letter from two "experts" to then-president Richard Nixon - and a quick read will forever convince you, beyond all doubt, that the "Climate Change Crisis" we now face is complete, utter, fabricated, Democrat BS.___Like this video? I could use your help to keep making them:*NEW*THE FIRST FULL-LENGTH PRO-TRUMP MEME SONG ALBUMThe FEELS GOOD MAN LP - Now Availablehttps://store.cdbaby.com/cd/johnward49WEBSITE, SHIRTS/MUGShttps://johnwardcinematics.comPATRONAGE/ONE-TIME DONATIONShttps://www.johnwardcinematics.com/su...CONTACThttps://johnwardcinematics.com/contact



SHOW MORE

[/COLOR]

They are watermelons: Environmentally green on the outside, commie red on the inside.

Originally Posted by mgtower

Yes, I remember earth day 1970, by 1975 they had us participating in nature studies and in school they predicted chlorofluorocarbon would eat up all the ozone allowing ionizing radiation to fry us at the same time they said there would be another ice age!

Not really a good example. Let's say someone predicts that the town is going to flood, so the town builds a levee, and when the river rises the town doesn't flood after all. Was the original prediction bullshit? Every industrialized nation on earth went to lengths to ban CFCs. I guess we'll never really know what would have happened if they hadn't. But the fact that the ozone layer is mostly still there isn't proof they were wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Not really a good example. Let's say someone predicts that the town is going to flood, so the town builds a levee, and when the river rises the town doesn't flood after all. Was the original prediction bullshit? Every industrialized nation on earth went to lengths to ban CFCs. I guess we'll never really know what would have happened if they hadn't. But the fact that the ozone layer is mostly still there isn't proof they were wrong.

And that is the crux of the matter. Because if causality can't be proven, then all these controls and bans that have imposed so much cost and inconvenience and heartache and death are really nothing more than "Let's try this and see if something good happens." Or, more to the point, with a Mencken slant, "Let's see if we can market this fakery in a way that there'll be enough panic so I can make a lucrative career out of it."

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Not really a good example. Let's say someone predicts that the town is going to flood, so the town builds a levee, and when the river rises the town doesn't flood after all. Was the original prediction bullshit? Every industrialized nation on earth went to lengths to ban CFCs. I guess we'll never really know what would have happened if they hadn't. But the fact that the ozone layer is mostly still there isn't proof they were wrong.

Nobody in that study took into consideration all the ozone we create through use of electricity, in particular arks sparks motors and such, now they'll be telling everyone there's too much ozone. Theories cannot be trusted when the scientists are narrow minded and gather the facts to suit their theory while leaving out key components.

Originally Posted by mgtower

at the same time they said there would be another ice age! Typical paradoxical oxymoron education,

Only 4? Every global warming and the newer climate change have been wrong.

To bootstrap off Sam's .0 post:

"Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today [has] come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science."

http://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-y...ic-predictions

A lot of them are repeats of the 70s ice age myth that's debunked in my previous video post. Most of them are second hand from newspapers not directly from actual science journals or actual scientists (Al Gore, Prince Charles, Gordan Brown are definitely not scientists so their opinion means nothing).

Two observations.....

(1) All I have seen for decades now is global warming deniers using the exact same urban myths and debunked arguments over and over again. They use the same methods of other science deniers like young earth creationists. For a full list, https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

(2) Global warming deniers can't even agree with each other you have 3 main viewpoints.

* Those who don't accept the earth is warming

* Those who do accept the earth is warming but deny humans are the cause (it's natural)

* Those who do accept humans are causing the warming but argue that (it's beneficial) or (too late to do anything about it) or (why should I give up my car when China has just built a massive new coal burning power station)

This is hardly a trivial disagreement, these are 3 mutually exclusive points of view yet I almost never hear them criticize each other. I even hear people make an argument supporting one of these viewpoints only for 5 minutes later to use an argument that supports one of the others.

I repeat: Show me verifiable causality linked to humans.

Originally Posted by kru-kut

"I trust nothing that environmentalist lot has to say" "that would mean a duplicate earth in a duplicate orbit with a duplicate atmosphere, minus mankind. On that basis alone, mankind's ability to affect the environment can never be proven"

You have already made it very clear that your criteria for accepting man made climate change will never be met.

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with personal criteria. I am trying to explain a scientific requirement for proving a case -- something so basic that it's taught in high school. "Climate change" (aka "global cooling," aka "global warming" -- whatever conveniently fits current conditions and will gain the most traction) is not science; it's a religious cult from which fake evidence and fake truths emerge. I would call it drivel but for the fact that it's far more-dangerous and harmful to the human race than that term would suggest.

Show me causality. ​Causality. Without causality, which can't be proven without a control group, you have no case. Sling all the substances at me you want, but in the end, you've got nothing.

Unfortunately I don't have your duplicate planet for a control group in my back pocket. We do however have a ton of evidence...…….
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What?!? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust that lot to give me an accurate oven-temperature reading.

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud: https://principia-scientific.org/nas...te-data-fraud/

Anyway, as I've already said, the overriding issue that renders all measurements (real or fake) pointless is this: neither you nor anyone else, no matter how many letters append to his surname, has any way of creating a control group. For that reason alone, human-caused climate change can never be proven. It really is that simple. Your case is without scientific merit. Furthermore, apart from the faulty methodology, every time your side presents data that turns out to be bogus, it just increases the level of distrust in the minds of people who try to approach important issues in an orderly, rational manner.

Bad data, fake science, government-funded co-conspiracy, and a glaringly-obvious political agenda that would wind up hurting and killing the planet's least-privileged humans if ever implemented. Further discussion is pointless, really.

Many years ago at a training session, some college types gave us a two hour piece on global warming. What their presentation boiled down to, was your region would still receive the same rainfall as before global warming, but it would not be as spread out. More rain in the spring, with hotter and dryer summers.


My own observation is so far their predications are beginning to come true. From what I remember, winters in western Oregon used to have more rainy days than we do now. Summers it don't rain much, and monster fire seasons have become the norm, not the exception. Giant floods and landslides are becoming common as well. If the college types are right, western Oregon will eventually turn from timber and farm land to savannah and grassland.

I don't think there's any doubt the human race is trashing the plant. It's just a matter of time, though I believe that the real problem is there's too many people more than our individual efforts that are dragging us down.

But again, it can not be known whether the human race is causing changes in the planet's climate. It can never be known, for the reasons I've repeatedly stated. So, any data-collection efforts (true or intentionally-skewed), and any observations (true or intentionally-skewed), are nothing more than academic static.

As for local changes, e.g. China's industrial smog, or California's wildfires and the resulting pollution and loss of animal life due to poor/nonexistent forest management, that's undeniable. But proving that those things have any effect on the planetary climate system and can actually affect naturally-occurring temperature trends is impossible. Why? Because, for the hundredth time, there is no control study: an identical planet absent human beings. I do not understand why this simple truth is so difficult to grasp.

Maybe because it's... "inconvenient."

Originally Posted by kru-kut

Furthermore, apart from the faulty methodology, every time your side presents data that turns out to be bogus, it just increases the level of distrust in the minds of people who try to approach important issues in an orderly, rational manner.Bad data, fake science, government-funded co-conspiracy, and a glaringly-obvious political agenda that would wind up hurting and killing the planet's least-privileged humans if ever implemented. Further discussion is pointless, really.

You mean like the Scientists in the 70s predicted an ice age crap, CO2 is plant food crap, Volcanos emit more CO2 than humans crap, plus all the other bogus arguments that denialists have been repeating for decades now and refuse to retract. These arguments are deliberately designed to mislead the general public. Obviously oil companies have an interest in spreading misinformation about climate change to protect their massive profits, something you don't consider.

Since you obviously don't want to hear any evidence about man made climate change how about look at it another way.

Our economy relies far too heavily on fossil fuels
These fuels are very dirty and polluting like the China industrial smog you mentioned (without climate change)
They are a finite resource, there is coal under where I live but it would cost more to extract than what it's worth.
A lot of these come from questionable countries like Saudi Arabia.
Wars will likely be break out over these resources.

If we do not find alternative energy sources soon we are in serious trouble WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, here in the UK we are already importing around a third of our energy, we exported it before 2004.
https://researchbriefings.parliament...ummary/SN04046

Look at it from an economic point of view, taking action against climate change and being wrong about it would still solve a lot of problems, a lot better than doing nothing.