1. The U.S. may warm 6 degrees F from 1990 to 2020
2. Oil will effectively run out by 2020
3) By 2020, no glaciers will be left on Mt. Kilimanjaro
4. A billion people will starve due to missing the tech revolution
5. By 2020, “millions will die” from climate change
#5… the climatologists have an easy answer, specious thought it is, every winter storm, summer storm, hurricane, typhoon, rain drop is stronger and more deadly due to climate change. They don’t offer any scientific proof and it is accepted blindly by the climate herd.
They’ve been spewing this kind of crap since the early ‘70s. Back then it was global cooling that was going to bury all of North America under ice. Nearly fifty years of persistent false prophesy yet they still manage to find new dupes. They have about as much credibility as Flat-Earthers.
Dont forget “Peak Oil” back in the day! What a crock of shit that turned out to be.
Which part of “peak oil” upsets you the most?
Nord,
Will you denounce these climate cult predictions?
Since there are no cults involved, I can’t. When will you ever understand that?
Nord,
So if it is nor a cult, these predictions above were “science”?
How can science be so grossly wrong all the time?
Reading these quotes and others closer today,is it any wonder many people believe climate change is a hoax.
Climate change believers have zero creditability.
“Carbon tax”, means they think they found a way to tax the air you breathe.
Indeed. Nort’s Church of Sound Science….
“The World is warming twice as fast as the World” – https://medium.com/@globalcooling/the-world-is-warming-twice-as-fast-as-the-world-bb5affb02f6d
50 years of “sound science” cult BS: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
Oh wait, make that 97 years: https://realclimatescience.com/fifty-years-of-failed-apocalyptic-forecasts/
Nord denies it is a cult, so if must be science.
He has no response to why science is so wrong all the time.
K, you’re right. It’s a cult.
Well kids, I hate to spoil you fun, but:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/underwater?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI24vBwZ_m5gIVBdbACh3wUAFdEAAYAiAAEgKpaPD_BwE&utm_campaign=climate&utm_medium=search&utm_source=googlegrants
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ten-signs-global-warming?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIqKX3-p_m5gIVCf_jBx0XMgBXEAAYAyAAEgL2I_D_BwE&utm_campaign=climate&utm_medium=search&utm_source=googlegrants
https://www.ipcc.ch/
And no, it isn’t a cult.
Nord,
Why do you post more erroneous data and conclusions, rather than address the long history of science being wrong on this?
If you stay with cult status, you can still save the idea of science and blame cult members gone bad.
Instead, you impugn the reliability of accuracy in science by denying the cult behavior.
Are these predictions, gone so wrong, good science?
How do you know they are “erroneous”? Your track record on the truth is worse than trump. And your scientific expertise is less than my 4 YO grand-daughter. So I’ll go with the smart folks on this one, not you.
PS: There is no cult. You are lying.
Nord,
Based on past doomsday predictions and “climate models” that have way overshot reality in the past.
Do you admit science has been wrong on global warming on the article Owen posted?
If you don’t admit it, you are the one with a reality problem.
If you admit the cult behavior,you can save science on this.
But since you deny the cult, science must take the blame for being constantly WRONG!
Nort, Minister of the Church of Sound Science, warns: “kids, I hate to spoil you fun, but:”
Fun just getting started, numbnutz….
>>> the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record
Yes, when your Climate Cult Trustees continually “adjust” past temperatures down and recent temperature up, you get to claim anything you want : https://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
>>>>. underwater?
Gosh, look at all these rock solid facts! “A high scenario that ASSUMES …”, “..COULD BE at risk.”, “flooding COULD HAVE staggering economic impacts. ” [out on a limb with that one, eh?], “.. sea level rise MAY…”. “Three sea level rise SCENARIOS….”
And the the example of the quintessential Climate Cultist BS: “global average sea level IS PROJECTED to rise about 2 feet by 2045 and about 6.5 feet by 2100.”, yet another scare non-fact denied even by your Cult’s own choir, NOAA: “The relative sea level trend is 2.85 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1856 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.94 feet in 100 years.” .
For those too stupid to do the math, like you Nort, that’s 8” by 2100. So, no, The Statue of Liberty won’t be hip deep is sea water, as depicted on the cover of your bible, NatGeo, in 2013.
I won’t even waste my time taking down the money-grabbing frauds at the UN IPCC, but at least even they admit that all the climate ‘models’ they use to spew ridiculous conclusions and world-encompassing edicts never were and never have been scientifically validated.
Because they can’t be.
The believers of climate are in a religion.
They have their beliefs, but few facts.
They have the Pope in Al Gore, followed by his cardinals, the Hollywood elite. They claim they believe in climate change but their actions don’t live up to their beliefs.
Then you have their priests. Those supposed scientists who have an agenda who then spread their gospel.
Then you have the minions like Le Roi who believe everything the priests, cardinals and the pope say, even though they have been proven wrong almost all the time.
So, you do have a religion of climate change believers, whether Le Roi believes in it or not.
Nord,
So is it the science that is always wrong?
Or is it the climate change cult that is always wrong?
Why do you ignore the facts of Owen’s article?
Prediction (noun):
A prediction (Latin præ-, “before,” and dicere, “to say”), or forecast, is a statement about a future event. A prediction is often, but not always, based upon experience or knowledge.
What is beneficial to the scientific community is the ability to evolve (I know that word will strike terror into the hearts of many) as new data and knowledge becomes available. No so much from the chronic deniers, as they want to stick with bronze age beliefs.
If you want to mock predictions, feel free. But take a look at 45 before you get too carried away…
Nord,
But your climate cult wants to act on these doomsday predictions, which are constantly untrue.
So you admit the science is lacking in the predictions and these dire doomsday forutne tellers are cultists?
Nort, Minister of the Church of Sound Science, claims : What is beneficial to the scientific community is the ability to evolve
If only they did, as your cult has refused to evolve over the last 97 years.
Nort, Minister of the Church of Sound Science, lies : they want to stick with bronze age beliefs
Lying is not a good look for a minister, numbnutz.
The exposure of the known falsehoods spewed from the pulpit of your Church and use of actual unmolested observed information instead of hyperventilating wild guesses based on untested models is, unlike your cult, not looking back but forward.
Apparently, you missed the “but not always” part of the your definition.
But, oh, look! I can cite inane dictionary definitions too!
predict (v)
1620s (implied in predicted), “foretell, prophesy,” a back formation from prediction or else from Latin praedicatus, past participle of praedicere “foretell, advise, give notice,” from prae “before” (see pre-) + dicere “to say” (from PIE root *deik- “to show,” also “pronounce solemnly”). Related: Predicted; predicting.
Again, I ask you Le Roi, please explain Australia. They don’t have the pollution the US does but yet they are in an extended drought and heat with massive wildfires.
Please explain this.
mar:
Are you attributing the situation in Australia to pollution caused Climate Change?
Are there any atmospheric conditions that would result in pollution from other parts of the world affecting Australia? Or is the atmosphere over Australia completely isolated from the rest of the world?
I think weather is cyclical. That is why Australia has been hotter than usual. Which is why my part of Arizona has been colder than Wisconsin for a couple of weeks this year.
Which is why the Earth maybe warming, which I have doubts,but if it is, it’s part of a cycle.
Which is why Greenland is named Greenland, not Iceland because at 1 time there was very little ice there.
And Le Roi, where I live, in area bigger than Milwaukee and Waukesha County combined, without going into the mountains, there is about 6 degree temperature difference between different places in the area. If I was an evil scientist, I could manipulate those numbers to show that the Earth is cooling or heating, depending where I decide to put the thermometer.
And there are reports that some evil scientists have put thermometers in the hottest places to prove their point that the Earth is getting hotter.
Wishful thinking, Mar.
So you think it’s “cycles.” Can we leave it to the scientists to do the measuring and analysis, and for you to return to your rocking chair and pontificating?
mar:
Remember a while back I suggested that you look further into such CC/GW issues as rate of change, and long-term trends? Obviously you didn’t.
Jiffy pontificates: The Saga of Erik the Red…
‘Science’ based on a PR move. Nice job, Jiffy.
And Iceland was first called “snow land” because it was snowing when
Naddador first arrived, later changed to “Iceland” when
Floki saw some ice in some fjords.
Jiffy continues pontificating: leave it to the scientists to do the measuring and analysis
Yes, let’s…
“The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.
From the genetic material of these organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.”
“Ice core and mollusk shell data suggests that from A.D. 800 to 1300, southern Greenland was much warmer than it is today.”
BTW, Erik the Red first landed in the formerly unnamed island in A.D. 982.
Perhaps you should return to your bar stool.
“The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.”
Now that ought to cause some controversy on this thread, as we have all been told numerous times by the one who possesses the absolute truth that the earth is 6000 years old, no more, no less. And DNA is a fascist socialist marxist liberal plot by the chinese to take away our guns.
Nord you ignored my last question.
Coward.
Cultist.
k:
I have told you before that if your questions contain your self-serving false narratives, I won’t respond until you remove the lies. I won’t play your silly game.
Nord,
It is simple.
Either the science is wrong.
Or
is the non-science cult wrong?
Which is it?
There is no cult involved. You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but I won’t play your silly game. You sure are a slow learner .
Nord,
So cult is out on blame?
Why is science so painfully wrong all the time then?
“Why is science so painfully wrong all the time then?”
It isn’t. Remember that the next time you go to a doctor, watch TV, open the door to your cooler at DQ, ride in a airplane, or send the next ignorant comment to this site.
Nord,
Then what explains all these doomsday statements being wrong and we were screamed “but its science” at the time?
What makes your shrill doomsday predictions any different? Is your cult…I mean science… faith better than past scientists?
k:
I didn’t make any predictions (ok, one, that you would prove yourself a fool on a regular basis), so don’t blame me for the predictions, right or wrong. What I did was provide you with facts. How you chose to respond is up to you. But when you make obviously false claims be prepared to be challenged.
Now I’ll sit back and watch my one prediction come true…….
Nord,
You are such a coward when it comes to holding erroneous science accountable.
Objectively speaking, that means you are a subjective sycophant on climate change belief.
Here is yet another scientific alarmist prediction gone awry:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/egg-on-their-faces-the-maldives-still-above-the-waves-30-years-after-environmentalist-prediction/?fbclid=IwAR2RqbszgKAtuw7d22HNyLa9MzJAdQesKUAeRp1EP7d-wJgoDwdl1mG4tBM
k:
Anytime you want to perform some test of your courage, come on up here. Don’t be scared by heading north, or worry about the bears and all the trees, we are reasonable and hospitable folks.
“that means you are a subjective sycophant on climate change belief” On the contrary, it means I am more interested in facts than predictions, unlike your selective hindsight.
And as long as you brought up the Maldives:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2125198-on-front-line-of-climate-change-as-maldives-fights-rising-seas/
Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt made IBM salesmen rich for 50 years and to his credit, AlGore and his kool-ade mixer pals were smart enough to copy the formula and get rich beyond the dreams of avarice.
As to the rest of “the cult,” ….well…..losers take the hindmost.
Why do you divert to everything but the simple question….
Why is science always wrong on climate change effects and doomsday theories?
k:
Have you quit beating your wife? Your question makes as much sense as that one.
Why are you always wrong about the age of the earth?
FYI: Science isn’t always wrong on climate change. And smart folks will leave the doomsday theories to you. .
Nord,
We have evidence in the article Owen posted.
There is no evidence to ask my wonderful wife such an insulting question.
Why do you ignore the evidence of science being wrong?
Do you enable the fact abusers?
Sounds like you have a problem enabling awful behavior.
k:
I wasn’t asking your long-suffering wife, I was asking you (see above).
Do you understand the definition of the word “always” ? Look it up before you make yourself look even more foolish.
Nord,
What doomsday prediction has science been right about?
I dare you to name one.
See above. You really need to work on those reading and comprehension skills. I going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think you want to get smarter, and that you are pathologically unable to accept new information. But I won’t make any predictions. No one is incapable of learning.
Nord,
You did not post a doomsday prediction. And if you consider it such, how is it different than the BS doomsday climate change predictions of past?
You have a good feeling the BS is sweeter this time?
What part of “And smart folks will leave the doomsday theories to you” don’t you understand?
You really need to deal with that reading disability.
Nord,
That is precisely the point the “smart folks” are using these doomsday theories to tax regulate and slop up for funding for their climate cabal.
The very idead that you think these erroneous scientfic theories are not being used to influence policy is the worst case of naivete I have ever seen….
but you purposely do that because you refuse to admit science is wrong…a lot.
k:
Read the quote again. Slowly. If you still aren’t sure what it means ask one of your kids. Or one of your minimum wage employees. I’m sure they can explain it for you. I’ve done all I can do to help you on this, but you have to want to be helped.
“The very idead that you think these erroneous scientfic theories are not being used to influence policy is the worst case of naivete I have ever seen….” I never made those claims, you did.
And since I never said that, your last claim is an outright lie.
Nord,
So is science wrong on these erroneous predictions, or not?
Why do you squirm with lack of a straight answer?
In Kevin’s “science” you only need to accept the evidence that agrees with your economic interest and/or lack of desire to learn.
Jjf,
Why do you divert?
Are the erroneous science predictions above a cult problem or science problem?
I say cult problem.
Nord is to cowardly to decide.
What say you?
Nord and jjf,
Which is it on these erroneous doomsday predictions?
Is the climate cult wrong?
Or the climate science wrong?
Simple question. Why are you both reluctant to answer such a simple question?
What does that silence in answering say about your alleged dedication to “scientific truth”?
I’d say the right question to ask, Kevin (or Owen), is who made a prediction and what did they base it on?
An analogy: if I found a Republican who said something stupid or made a prediction that turned out to be wrong, could I declare that Republicanism is wrong, or that all Republicans are wrong?
jjf,
The onfo is all there in Owen’s linked article…if you bothered to read, rather than conduct a campaing of disinformation in pursuit of your ideological zealotry.
Read the article. My question is still valid.
Climate Cult problem?
Or Science problem?
Nord, jjf,
Are these erroneous doomsday predictions a:
Cult problem?
Or a a science problem?
Why can’t either of you provide a reasonable explanation for how wrong these end of the world predicting scientists are?