ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

Decades of failed predictions

At this point, "scientific" predictions might as well be coin flips given the way they so readily exchange one form of catastrophe for its opposite.
The conservative-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute has put together a lengthy compilation of apocalyptic predictions dating back decades that did not come to pass, timed as Democratic presidential candidates and climate activists refocus attention on the issue.

The dire predictions, often repeated in the media, warned of a variety of impending disasters – famine, drought, an ice age, and even disappearing nations – if the world failed to act on climate change.

An Associated Press headline from 1989 read "Rising seas could obliterate nations: U.N. officials." The article detailed a U.N. environmental official warning that entire nations would be eliminated if the world failed to reverse warming by 2000.

Then there were the fears that the world would experience a never-ending "cooling trend in the Northern Hemisphere." That claim came from an "international team of specialists" cited by The New York Times in 1978.

Just years prior, Time magazine echoed other media outlets in suggesting that "another ice age" was imminent. "Telltale signs are everywhere — from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest," the magazine warned in 1974. The Guardian similarly warned in 1974 that "Space satellites show new Ice Age coming fast."

In 1970, The Boston Globe ran the headline, "Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century." The Washington Post, for its part, published a Columbia University scientist's claim that the world could be "as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age."
One of the great advantages of age is that you can readily spot the liars, having been lied to by them before.

Labels: , ,

51 Comments:

Blogger johndoe03526 September 18, 2019 6:21 PM  

I want to know when was the Golden Age in Earth's history, when the climate didn't change, and the temperature was just right, not too hot, not too cold.

Blogger Ahărôwn September 18, 2019 6:22 PM  

It's always amazing to me how so many scientists, in addition to being philosophically illiterate, are also historically illiterate, even with events that occurred within their own lifetime.

One would think that people whose job is to observe patterns, would actually observe patterns. I suppose there's no funding for that.

It's always current year with too many of them. They may not believe in God, but they certainly believe in Progress!

Blogger weka September 18, 2019 6:26 PM  

The real researchers are more humble. One of the things that grates is when the faux researchers say we have strong evidence in an area I've spent decades working in because the research data is week.

Particularly public servants and their tame politicians. Official science is false science.

Blogger Robert What? September 18, 2019 6:27 PM  

And yet the people who believe the alarmists keep on believing over and over again without ever seeming to notice the previous failed predictions. What kind of psychology does that take?

Blogger Doktor Jeep September 18, 2019 6:30 PM  

"One of the great advantages of age is that you can readily spot the liars, having been lied to by them before."
So one of my hispanic coworkers mentioned his son got some good grade in school regarding a presentation on "Climate Change".
One of these days I will have an opportunity to tell him he was let into America solely because he will believe in lies that myself and other white people were already told.
If he objects he'll be told he has to go back. Most of these people plan on retiring back in their home countries anyway.

Blogger Brick Hardslab September 18, 2019 6:31 PM  

Losing Atlantis ruined all that...

Blogger Old Griz September 18, 2019 6:34 PM  

There are too many grant grubbing science whores. If they can get a grant they'll study it. Getting negative results precludes getting another grant from their politicized benefactors. For a while adding global warming to a grant request in any area was required to get the grant.

Blogger Jehu September 18, 2019 6:38 PM  

Closest thing to a Golden Age of Climate would be the Climate Optimum during the Middle ages around 1000-1300. Warm enough back then for Scotland to be good wine country, so quite a bit warmer than today.

Blogger Nikolai Collushnikov September 18, 2019 6:42 PM  

Science is like any other business. You get the results that you pay for.

Blogger carnaby September 18, 2019 6:43 PM  

Confess your climate sins!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/specials/climate-confessions-share-solutions-climate-change-n1054791

Blogger Gregory the Great September 18, 2019 6:46 PM  

Another advantage of age is that you can remember that the sea level was the same when you wete young.

Blogger Ingot9455 September 18, 2019 6:51 PM  

@1 I believe we got kicked out of that Garden for eating the wrong fruit.

Blogger lynnefoghart September 18, 2019 6:55 PM  

Man A: Why is this true?
Man B: Studies! We have consulted the entrails and Studies have shown this to be true!
Man A: What were the parameters, how often were they repeated, who financed it, who performed it, what were the sample sizes?
Man B: How dare you question the immortal wisdom of the unquestioned wisdom of Studies!

Conclusion: I think it's high time they just admit what they are and start opening temples and performing ritualistic bull sacrifices to the immortal god Studies. He must be a powerful god, to always be right, without question and without anyone ever knowing what exactly he is comprised of and what curses, blessings, rituals, and other mysteries were performed by his druidic clergy, whose identities are hidden to the public, to arrive at his wisdom.

Blogger Nikolai Collushnikov September 18, 2019 6:58 PM  

I wonder. Just what is the optimal average temperature for the Earth? What is the optimal CO2 level to achieve that average temperature? And what levels of Carbon Taxes will achieve that CO2 level?

Blogger lazarus long September 18, 2019 7:18 PM  

when you're a psycho-financial parasite, any change of season looks like doom until the next adrenochrome hit

Blogger xevious2030 September 18, 2019 7:34 PM  

“I want to know when was the Golden Age in Earth's history, when the climate didn't change, and the temperature was just right, not too hot, not too cold.”

In the last 450k years, that would be the last 10k years until now, attributed primarily to cow farts, occurring to the doomsdayists.

Blogger JovianStorm September 18, 2019 7:36 PM  

If they can't even accurately predict rain 5 days in advance, how the hell are scienticians going to be trustworthy on predictions for 50 years from now?

We often say in the lab, "0% accuracy and 100% precision gets the grant money." if you're totally wrong on climate change but you're consistently wrong in a way that matches federal funding then you're golden. Hello, tenure. Hello, fully funded facilities. Hello, department chair.

Money makes science stupid.

Blogger Brett baker September 18, 2019 7:38 PM  

Depends on where you live.

Blogger Joe Smith September 18, 2019 7:44 PM  

I am a working physicist at the moment, so I see some parts of the stupid system and people from the inside. Scientistry is badly broken right now. It’s clear that scientists generally no longer value Truth. It’s the exact same problem as “philosophizing in the best possible way” ala the last post. Science is not done in the best possible way currently, if it ever was.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash September 18, 2019 8:06 PM  

Doktor Jeep wrote:Most of these people plan on retiring back in their home countries anyway.
Leaving their spawn behind them.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( Honkeys genocided poor, innocent little Smallpox, it was anuddah Shoah!, WhiteManBad ) September 18, 2019 8:18 PM  

John Ward did an exemplary video on the history of enviro lies that have been told over the last 50 years:

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

of course, the lies go back further than that. there are stories in National Geographic from the early 1900s claiming that climate disaster could be upon us any year now.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( Honkeys genocided poor, innocent little Smallpox, it was anuddah Shoah!, WhiteManBad ) September 18, 2019 8:23 PM  

1. johndoe03526 September 18, 2019 6:21 PM
I want to know when was the Golden Age in Earth's history, when the climate didn't change, and the temperature was just right, not too hot, not too cold.




there's never been a time when it "didn't change".

many people are fond of the Medieval Climate Optimum.

me personally, i'd rather have the planet as warm as it was when Antarctica had crocodiles.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/animals/a26092441/antarctica-warm-weather-lizard-fossil/

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( Honkeys genocided poor, innocent little Smallpox, it was anuddah Shoah!, WhiteManBad ) September 18, 2019 8:26 PM  

also, astro physicists have NEVER ONCE been correct about comets, aside from accurately predicting their orbits. which any fool can do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL8ccdst1fs

Blogger The Observer September 18, 2019 8:36 PM  

@19:

Science was at its best when scientists were priests driven by a desire to understand God through His creation. Christianity and its belief in a rational God who followed rules set by Himself formed the basis of modern science, as opposed to other religions which either a) discouraged investigation into the physical world or b) explained events as altercations between or the whims of a many-faceted pantheon. The very presupposition that there are rules of the universe which have to be followed is rooted in Christian thought.

The genuine desire to understand God kept the scientist-priests on the straight and narrow, as opposed to the perverse incentives we see today. Without the source of the Logos, the edifice of science is simply reverting to a form of polytheism, as above posters have noted.

Blogger Didas Kalos September 18, 2019 8:50 PM  

The first few days of Eden.

Blogger 20/20 LP September 18, 2019 9:10 PM  

Today, I learned the kids are being told to have a AGW walk out, this was local radio.

Science is child abuse.

Telling children and the rest of us after all these doom props, is costing a body count, science has contributed to the deaths of many children not guns.

You sick people told kids that life will be over in 10 years, 20 years, to the tv, (lies) "a world after or without humans."

Now, its still bad the NEA and schools are still open but America has to create or imprint madness on baby cogs.

Now there are climate walk outs.

Before everyone gets mad, all I did was make coffee, turn AM on its AGW school walk outs.

Blogger eclecticme September 18, 2019 9:15 PM  

Ayn Rand said "Engineering is truth. Science is dogma."
I 'knew' she was wrong as I read that long ago.
Much later I understood what she meant. She was right.

Tony Heller produces lots of youtube videos about climate change. He reads the latest AWG propaganda then demonstrates it is false with data. E.g. He destroys the current NYT alarmist story with past NYT published data.

Here is his latest.
https://youtu.be/mKbDfP5DitA

Blogger eclecticme September 18, 2019 9:16 PM  

What is the current earth temperature? Just wondering.

Blogger The Lab Manager September 18, 2019 9:58 PM  

According to the warmunist, Padre Island should have become the largest sand bar in the world.

Blogger BriarRabbit September 18, 2019 10:02 PM  

Eden. Everything after the fall is screwy.

Blogger Paul September 18, 2019 10:13 PM  

Science is ultimately limited because the speed of light is the fastest we can receive information for the purpose of scientific observation. Heisenberg's actual word was "unknowable", not "uncertain." Doesn't seem like a big deal.....but it's actually huge. The quantum world moves faster than the speed of light. Because of this, the Scientific Method is, in the strictest sense of the word, INCAPABLE of measuring, predicting, hypothesizing, anything with certainty. Global is a scam of the scientific industrial complex.

Blogger Jack Morrow September 18, 2019 10:19 PM  

"Scientists should always be on tap, but never on top."

--Sir Winston Churchill

Blogger TMLutas September 18, 2019 10:39 PM  

@4 Laughter is the best medicine. We don't have enough people with sharp memories and the tools to make us (as societies) good at catching the liars either haven't been written yet or are not widely deployed. When being caught by the latest hoax apocalypse is cause to be mocked until your reproductive chances significantly drop, then we'll have the problem beat.

@14 All terms in the general climate equation are variables, not constants. There might very well be an optimal climate for Earth but the right CO2 percentage to get us there changes with the amount of sunlight received at top of atmosphere (TOA). We probably want enough CO2 to green up the deserts combined with a sun shade that drops received sunlight by a fraction of a percent of current 2019 values but there is no one single number that you can hold in your head and say yes, things are right. There are too many variables for things to be that simple.

@17 Science needs a new source of money that funds differently than the USG. Only when going into an echo chamber guarantees you *don't* get all the grant money will science progress.

@28 We don't know with any decent precision because the sensors aren't widely enough deployed and all accurately read. You can average it all down into one number theoretically but that's probably not the most useful way to use the sensors.

We need a discussion of what is the Earth for and what outcomes we want to maximize. Once we settle that, we can try to arrange things that the largest useful bits hit closest to the optimum.

Blogger Johnny Reb September 18, 2019 10:47 PM  

Those people are the science version of the jokers who keep predicting the exact day the Rapture is going to happen.

Blogger eclecticme September 18, 2019 10:51 PM  

Dr.Patrick Moore said that shell fish grab CO2 from water to form their exoskeletons which then end up sequestered in carbonaceous rocks. He said that the CO2 level had been dangerously close to the low level at which plants cannot live. He said we would reach that point in around 2 million years. Luckily for the earth, we started burning fossil fuels.

Blogger Phil Mann September 18, 2019 11:16 PM  

Science is ultimately limited because the speed of light is the fastest we can receive information for the purpose of scientific observation.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, beyond the currently accepted belief that information (i.e. energy/matter) cannot travel faster than c. But the basic claim that "science is ultimately limited" is true, although probably not for the reason given.

At its fundamental level, science is simply a search for those relatively few things that appear to follow rules and laws that are independent of what people think about them. The trajectory of a rock thrown in the air, the motion of the planets around the sun, the behavior of subatomic particles in their interactions with one-another, these appear, at present, to fall into this category. However, relatively few other things do.

The problem comes when attempts are made to force "science" onto things that may be, and likely are, fundamentally UN-scientific in the sense that they DON'T obey rules independent of what people think. Most of what happens in this world (e.g., who the hot female pop singer will be in 2022) is not the result of inviolate laws that can be predicted years or centuries in advance. If they could be, you should sign her up now and get obscenely rich.

With all due respect to our gracious host, I submit that even "economics" falls into this questionably unscientific category, at least to the extent that mathematical equations are used in an attempt to describe what ultimately comes down to how largely irrational people (does MPAI ring a bell?) elect to allocate their resources. Three centuries old Newtonian physics allows us to send space probes to Neptune and beyond. Can anyone accurately tell us what the price of Amazon stock will be one year from now? Can anyone even accurately tell us whether it will be raining in downtown Seattle at Noon one week from now?

At one time (a glorious time that has apparently passed) "science" was the realm of young nerds who were fundamentally honest and simply tried to observe the relatively few aspects of the world that bore and rewarded objective observation. As Vox has accurately pointed out, their success in doing so is now the envy of those who do not actually share that mindset, but nevertheless want the prestige that results from the "science" label. They're all frauds.




Blogger Unknown September 18, 2019 11:24 PM  

Burning coal should be celebrated as the best way found to restore the Earth's optimal CO2 level for plant life. Probably 3 or 4 times higher than now.

Blogger Paul September 18, 2019 11:46 PM  

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, beyond the currently accepted belief that information (i.e. energy/matter) cannot travel faster than c.

The scientific method requires observation and certainty of measurement. If something moves faster than your ability to retrieve information about it, you can't measure it. If you can't measure it....you can't science it. Science is and always will be Philosophy's bitch.

Blogger Paul September 19, 2019 12:09 AM  

If you can't measure it, you can't science it.....we should meme that across the internet. Anyone out there now how to start a virus?

Blogger Rabid Ratel September 19, 2019 1:36 AM  

Ahărôwn wrote:One would think that people whose job is to observe patterns, would actually observe patterns. I suppose there's no funding for that.


1. Modern schooling is designed to suppress pattern recognition. I have met too many people that have the facts and equations right at their fingertips, but with no idea of how to proceed.

2. None is so blind as those whose job is to not-see.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine September 19, 2019 2:09 AM  

"But the basic claim that "science is ultimately limited" is true, although probably not for the reason given."

His reason is correct for one form of limitation, however the limitation he's talking about and the one named for Heisenberg are different limitations. There are other limitations as well.

In Heisenberg's case, his point is that below a certain threshold the only way to measure parameters necessarily simultaneously is blind to and alters other parameters in an unpredictable fashion.

"I submit that even "economics" falls into this questionably unscientific category, at least to the extent that mathematical equations are used in an attempt to describe what ultimately comes down to how largely irrational people (does MPAI ring a bell?) elect to allocate their resources."

You can still provide if/then arguments. If the argument is logically correct and the "then" doesn't materialize, the "ifs" aren't all correct. If it does materialize, they're probably correct, but it might just be a different input combination that happens to have the same result. Irrational actors are not necessarily a confounding factor, they might just be a complicating one.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums September 19, 2019 3:16 AM  

There is no such thing as a dumb scientist which is why no scientist ever wants to contradict another for fear of looking dumb. Same thing happened to atheism when after some "study" came out that said atheists are on average smarter than non-atheists.

What turned me off about science and peer review is understanding how much more stringent and objective market and product research are. Taleb is eternally right: never trust anyone who doesn't have skin in the game.

Blogger Phil Mann September 19, 2019 3:22 AM  

In Heisenberg's case, his point is that below a certain threshold the only way to measure parameters necessarily simultaneously is blind to and alters other parameters in an unpredictable fashion.

Exactly. Which is why a century or so ago scientists abandoned the idea that if they could, in principle, know the exact present state of every material object in the universe, they could predict, with certainty, precisely how those objects will behave in the future, meaning (again in principle) they could predict exactly how individuals not yet born will behave and interact 1000 years from now. Heisenberg pointed out that this idea of actually knowing the exact state of every particle in the universe is, as far as we know, not possible in the first place, which more or less threw a monkey wrench into this idea that "science" can or will make everything understandable. Which is also why quantum physics still (I think) talks in terms of probabilities, not certainties.

My point remains. "Science" works, as far as we know, for only a very small sub-set of the vast number of things we experience in our short existence in this material world. Most people who actually work in science know and accept this. Paradoxically, it is the lay followers of science who seem to have more faith in the field than those who actually work within it.

Blogger Paul M September 19, 2019 4:28 AM  

johndoe03526 wrote:I want to know when was the Golden Age in Earth's history, when the climate didn't change, and the temperature was just right, not too hot, not too cold.
Basically, the past 10ky - the Holocene.

Blogger Shimshon September 19, 2019 4:34 AM  

"One of the great advantages of age is that you can readily spot the liars, having been lied to by them before."

I still remember being propagandized about the impending ice age as an elementary school student in the 1970s.

Those memories were still quite fresh when the first stirrings of global warming panic were felt in 1989-90. I naively thought it would be a passing fad. Global cooling lasted all of a few years I think. That did not happen.

Decades and trillions of dollars later...

I wonder what was different that the latter gained traction? After all, ice ages were already a known, if unexperienced, phenomenon. I have some thoughts.

1. Technology, including deployed in space, had advanced significantly. Better data, and more opportunities to obfuscate it.

2. A genuine warming trend, and one that was absolutely typical, based on historical records.

3. Venus. I have some memory of Venus being used as a byword. Without a shred of evidence, and much to the contrary, they basically said Venus must have in the past had a more temperate climate, and its uniquely hot surface temperature was the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, and nothing else, due solely to CO2. Therefore, EARTH IS IN DANGER!!!

4. The only reasonable solution to promulgate for an ice age is massive energy development and use. But they didn't want that. Warming, according to their claim, demanded, immediate mitigation, to the point that the CO2 we exhale is literally considered a dangerous pollutant by them.

Blogger Sillon September 19, 2019 5:33 AM  

carnaby wrote:Confess your climate sins!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/specials/climate-confessions-share-solutions-climate-change-n1054791


I confess to the almighty Gaia god that I use the microwave, the oven and the stove to cook and re-warm my children's food, I beg for forgiveness.

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Blogger Gettimothy September 19, 2019 6:08 AM  

Here's a failed prediction for 'the conservative leaning'

"The GOP will dramatically reduce the size of government, balance the budget and get D.C out of our lives"

Blogger Duke Norfolk September 19, 2019 6:28 AM  

eclecticme wrote:What is the current earth temperature? Just wondering.

Quite right (your implied point). Quite possibly the biggest lie told is that we can measure the "global temperature", at all, much less with the precision that they pretend to have accomplished.

That right there set off the warning light for me. It's absolute B.S., and yet they can look you in the face and say it is so; with a lot of scientific jargon to make it sound authoritative. Liars all the way down.

Blogger DannyDanger September 19, 2019 11:42 AM  

@45
Shimshon wrote:I wonder what was different that the latter gained traction?

I think you hit it with #4 - the idea that the crisis could be considered anthropogenic unlocks all sorts of rational to control human behavior

Blogger Dirk Manly September 19, 2019 12:57 PM  

@13

"Conclusion: I think it's high time they just admit what they are and start opening temples and performing ritualistic bull sacrifices to the immortal god Studies."

Can't sacrifice bulls. That would be for the age of Taurus. We're now in the age of Aquarius. That means we must sacrifice water-bearers. Effete "I never drink tap water, ONLY bottle water" yuppie snob will work perfectly.

Blogger Dirk Manly September 19, 2019 1:09 PM  

@33

"There might very well be an optimal climate for Earth but the right CO2 percentage to get us there changes with the amount of sunlight received at top of atmosphere "

C02 doesn't change temperature.
Temperature changes are one of the factors that drive CO2 level changes.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts