50 years of failed eco predictions

velana_20180713222632.jpg

Valena International

Twat.
 
Grumpy said:
Two different times I spent a year each week on the paradise known as diego garcia ... and yes indeed that runway is not very far above sea level ... and seeing a coconut crab is an eyeopening experience.
Click to expand...

a year each week? You've cracked the temporal code! I've had weeks like that, never in an island paradise.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yea, right... The IPCC has a horrible track record of predictions. I could get better predictions from a psychic or tarot card reader. The IPCC's reports are politically driven to create a crisis that doesn't exist for the purposes of furthering the power, influence, and wealth of those making the predictions.
Click to expand...

Interesting, since the predictions from 2001 for the temperature increase by 2021 have been pretty spot on.
Prediction
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/chapter-9-projections-of-future-climate-change/
Figure 9.14

Actual
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/


Would you care to tell us where you think the predictions were wrong?

The 2001 predictions are for a .4 degree increase. All Temperature measurement datasets show about a .4 degree increase in the 20 year time frame.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Interesting, since the predictions from 2001 for the temperature increase by 2021 have been pretty spot on.
Prediction
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/chapter-9-projections-of-future-climate-change/
Figure 9.14

Actual
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/


Would you care to tell us where you think the predictions were wrong?

The 2001 predictions are for a .4 degree increase. All Temperature measurement datasets show about a .4 degree increase in the 20 year time frame.
Click to expand...

We could start with dissenting opinions you never hear.

http://climatechangereconsidered.or...II-Fossil-Fuels-Summary-for-Policy-Makers.pdf

The problem here is that the IPCC is a political body, not a scientific one. They do no research of their own, just select available research and put it together in a report.

Top 5 most outrageous 2020 doomsday predictions that didn't pan out
Click to expand...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/top-5-most-outrageous-2020-doomsday-predictions

IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...t-their-global-warming-predictions-were-wrong

https://www.cato.org/blog/ipcc-pretty-much-dead-wrong

UN Backtracks
Will Global Warming Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?
In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.
Click to expand...
https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html

Every few years the IPCC comes out with a new report that predicts the end of the world type disasters to befall the planet within a decade or two if we don't spend billions or even trillions doing what they recommend. That's the political motivation for the report to find disaster right around the corner.
Then the new report backtracks and tries to excuse past wrong predictions to allay suspicion that the current report could be equally wrong.
Those in the MSM, academic science fields, etc., all proclaim the current report is spot on and say they need a big chunk of that funding for whatever they're doing to "save the planet."

The IPCC report isn't about objective science. It's about politics, power, and money. Consider this: If the IPCC found that all was well with the planet and that measures being taken to combat climate change were working well, would they report that and then say their work was done? Would they disband because they'd accomplished their goal of saving the planet from climate change?

Hell no they wouldn't! That would cost them their cushy jobs. Thus is created the need for dire predictions and demands for lots more funding. If you think the IPCC is neutral and objective in this game you're an idiot. They're just a bunch of government bureaucrats doing what government bureaucrats everywhere do.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
We could start with dissenting opinions you never hear.

bullshit that has nothing to do with your original claim deleted.
Click to expand...
So rather then showing how the predictions were wrong, you just post a bunch of bullshit from people that had nothing to do with the predictions? Are you incapable of looking at the numbers yourself? Are you incapable of pointing out where you think the numbers are wrong? Are you admitting that your claim that the predictions were wrong is wrong because clearly you have presented no evidence to refute the fact that the prediction was .4 temperature increase and the actual temperature increase was .4.

Your Fox story has nothing to do with the IPCC predictions. It's one claim is this - The latest UN report shows that current temperatures are just within the UN’s old predictions made in 1990, which shows you were spouting bullshit.

In the case of the Guardian story which is 11 years old, it isn't yet 2035 so you can't say the prediction was right or wrong.

For the Cato story which is 8 years old, would you care to find where the IPCC predicted mass extinctions by 2021?

It seems you can't read the IPCC reports yourself. It seems you can't do the math yourself. Are you always so ignorant and easily led around by the nose?

It seems you have no clue as to who makes up the IPCC and how or even if they get paid.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
So rather then showing how the predictions were wrong, you just post a bunch of bullshit from people that had nothing to do with the predictions? Are you incapable of looking at the numbers yourself? Are you incapable of pointing out where you think the numbers are wrong? Are you admitting that your claim that the predictions were wrong is wrong because clearly you have presented no evidence to refute the fact that the prediction was .4 temperature increase and the actual temperature increase was .4.

Your Fox story has nothing to do with the IPCC predictions. It's one claim is this - The latest UN report shows that current temperatures are just within the UN’s old predictions made in 1990, which shows you were spouting bullshit.

In the case of the Guardian story which is 11 years old, it isn't yet 2035 so you can't say the prediction was right or wrong.

For the Cato story which is 8 years old, would you care to find where the IPCC predicted mass extinctions by 2021?

It seems you can't read the IPCC reports yourself. It seems you can't do the math yourself. Are you always so ignorant and easily led around by the nose?

It seems you have no clue as to who makes up the IPCC and how or even if they get paid.
Click to expand...

The IPCC was formed in 1988. They've made a lot of predictions. We can judge how good they are on the predictions that have gone past their due date and whether they were accurate or not. We can't know if what they're predicting now will happen or not years down the road. But like odds makers in Vegas, if you get it wrong all the time you won't be trusted to suddenly get it right. That's why I showed their past track record of poor predictions.

I've read several of the IPCC reports. They tend towards worst case scenarios which is what bureaucrats do because that is the best way to get more funding, power, and people into your organization. The IPCC is part of the UN. The UN is a political organization. That makes the IPCC a government bureaucracy. It doesn't matter where they hire people from, those people are for all intents government employees of the UN. That's who's paying them.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The IPCC was formed in 1988. They've made a lot of predictions. We can judge how good they are on the predictions that have gone past their due date and whether they were accurate or not. We can't know if what they're predicting now will happen or not years down the road. But like odds makers in Vegas, if you get it wrong all the time you won't be trusted to suddenly get it right. That's why I showed their past track record of poor predictions.

I've read several of the IPCC reports. They tend towards worst case scenarios which is what bureaucrats do because that is the best way to get more funding, power, and people into your organization. The IPCC is part of the UN. The UN is a political organization. That makes the IPCC a government bureaucracy. It doesn't matter where they hire people from, those people are for all intents government employees of the UN. That's who's paying them.
Click to expand...
Except you didn't show a single wrong prediction that had failed to come to pass. Name one specific prediction you can point to in an IPCC report that has failed to occur. The majority of the predictions are based on what ifs. If the what ifs change then the prediction is not valid. Let me give you an example. If a professional baseball team doesn't put any fielders in the field the other team could score 100 runs. No team has ever scored 100 runs. Does that make my prediction false? No, it means that no team has ever failed to put fielders on the field. If we don't reduce electrical usage then the world's temperature will increase by 6 degrees is not a false prediction if we reduce electrical usage since the basis of the prediction did not occur.

It isn't yet 2100 or 2035 so any claims that those predictions have not occurred would show you don't understand how time works. They revised their predictions based on revised science and changes in behaviors. For instance, since 1988, the electrical usage in the US and around the world has not grown as fast as predicted because of energy saving measures and new technologies. The introduction and perfection of LED lighting has reduced electrical usage for lighting. Electrical usage in the US has decreased from 2004 to today while the % from fossil fuels has decreased.

I doubt you have read any of the IPCC reports or you would know they are written and reviewed by scientists working in the fields they are writing about and are not employees of the UN. They are all listed in the IPCC reports. If you have actually read the reports then point to the specific prediction from 1990 that you think was wrong.
Here is the Policymaker Summary of Impacts of Climate change - (It's not the actual IPCC report.)
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_II_spm.pdf
Point to the specific predictions that you think have proven to be false.
 
I wonder why all those liberal democrat politicians have ocean front property. And are still buying it. Hmmmmmmm.
 
Grumpy said:
wow ... rain in the UK ... whoda thunk ???
Click to expand...

You're just as observant as your orange, dear leader.

September 18 2018
"The video, recorded on the White House lawn, the president referred to Florence as a “tough” hurricane, saying it is one of the “wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”

“I just want to thank all of the incredible men and women who have done such a great job in helping with Florence,” he said in the video. “This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top