Cracked Crystal Ball: Environmental Catastrophe Edition


It always is.

Fox News reporter, Maxim Lott, takes a delightful little stroll down memory lane to see how well eight selected environmentalist predictions of various sorts of imminent doom have fared. A few are shared below:

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers.

A spokesman for the government-funded British Council, where Viner now works as the lead climate change expert, told that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

Oppenheimer told that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction. He added that the gist of his story had in fact come true, even if the events had not occurred in the U.S.

"On the whole I would stand by these predictions—not predictions, sorry, scenarios—as having at least in a general way actually come true," he said. "There's been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation—rain and snow—has increased slightly over the century.

As a special treat, Lott talks with the irrepressible doomster Paul Ehrlich who, as far as I can tell, has never been right in any of his forecasts of imminent catastrophe.

7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets."

"When you predict the future, you get things wrong," Ehrlich admitted, but "how wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."

8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

"Certainly the first part of that was very largely true—only off in time," Ehrlich told "The second part is, well—the fish haven't washed up, but there are very large dead zones around the world, and they frequently produce considerable stench."

"Again, not totally accurate, but I never claimed to predict the future with full accuracy," he said

I have had the pleasure of covering this beat for two decades now. For examples, see my 2000 article on Earth Day, Then and Now and my testimony at an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

I did make one prediction back in 2000 that I still stand firmly behind:

One final prediction, of which I'm most absolutely certain: There will be a disproportionately influential group of doomsters predicting that the future–and the present–never looked so bleak.

Lott's whole article is well worth reading.

Hat tip to Manny Klausner.

NEXT: 2010: The Year John Cage Broke

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Maxim? What an awesome cognomen!

    1. Assuming it’s short for something. If it’s actually his full first name, that’s even awesomer.

      1. Maxim Libertate. Man, that just rules. A nickname could be Maxim Gun.

        1. Maximilian Libertate?

          1. While that’s cool, it’s not as good as just plain Maxim.

            Another nickname might be Maximum.

    2. It’s sort of makes his last name redundant, though.

      1. Wonder what his middle name is?

  2. If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.


    1. It’s not dead yet, and it may even be getting better.

      1. Thankfully I’m not an adrenaline addict, and so also not a gambler.

      2. I think it may want to go for a walk.

        1. You’re not fooling anyone, you know.


        2. I feel happy! I feel happy!!

  3. Back on topic, the older I get, the less seriously I take these apocalyptic pronouncements.

    What’s bad about that is that we could be doing some things that could lead to unpleasant consequences. But doing the Chicken Little dance is exactly the worst way to persuade people into changing anything. Which is why these people like compulsion so much.

    1. And that’s why Chicken Little + Compulsion = Seriously, get the fuck off my property. 3….2….

      1. Newsflash: Noted blog commenter wylie arrested for shooting the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Details at 11:00.

        1. I thought he WAS a wolf. Self-Defense.

          1. After all, he kept saying it: Wolf, wolf, wolf. Figured he must be one.

          2. It WAS self-defense.

            The presence of such annoying little
            $h!^z leaves one with the choice of either shooting the kid or shooting oneself.

    2. Huh. I didnt take them seriously from sometime about age 14 on.

      However, I still think every August that my alma mater will go undefeated in football, so it isnt like gullible isnt in my dictionary.

  4. UK: WINTER MAY BE COLDEST IN 1000 YEARS……..000-years/

    BTW, anyone who tells you that weather isn’t climate is full of shit. That’s like saying the ocean isn’t water.

    1. especially true when you are looking at a tiny sample size like alarmists do. This coldest winter represents about 1% of all accurate measurements which is really quite large and can’t be brushed aside.

  5. But there was no snow in Africa again this Christmas.

    1. Do they know it’s Christmas time at all?

      1. Bob Geldof recently declared that the worst song ever recorded.

  6. “Mark my words, one of these days the sky really will fall. And then you’ll be sorry.”
    -Chicken Little

  7. You know what makes me want to puke? It’s the way these asshats absolutely can’t resist rationalizing their horseshit. It would be so fucking refreshing for one of these jackasses just to come out and say “Yeah, I full of bullshit and I get paid for being an expert because I can make up interesting bullshit.”

    There is no natural justice in existence that I can detect. That is one fairytale almost all of us have fallen for – that the truth of things will ultimately win out. It does not. The good guys do not win and people simple do not, for the most part, get their just deserts. I also hate this – the use by fantastically successful people of the backward euphemism “challenging”, as in “I enjoy my work because it is challenging.” when what they really mean is “rewarding”. When I was 18 I worked as a hand dishwasher in a restaurant that would frequently host wedding parties of 200 plus people with only 160 place setting.

    I used to have to kill myself getting the dishes washed and dried and when that was over I had to do all pots and pans the cooks used and mop and clean and vacuum the entire place. Typically 10 hours a day all for $1.60/hour with no overtime. You try living that life and supporting yourself that way and talk to me about how challenging your job is as CEO of big corporation. Or you try being a single mom raising and supporting 4 kids as a cashier in a dollar store and talk to me about how challenging your work is. People do this every day of their lives. Sorry, just something that has always pissed me off – the elites views of themselves.

    1. You beat me to the punch… see below.

    2. I don’t know. A challenging job is one in which you have taken on something you’re not sure you can handle. It seems to me that extremely successful people tend to do that a lot and see their willingness to do so as part of their success.

      I think maybe you’re confusing that use of the word with the more modern PC use of the word “challenged.”

  8. You know what I find the most disturbing? It is that all people quoted in Mr. Bailey’s post actually STAND BY their prophecy… They would demonstrate some kind of a shadow of a small intelligence if they said “I was wrong.” But no, they continue as if they were right. They are despicable. And stupid. And crazy.

    1. A rational person would say “I was wrong but…” Not these guys. They are like the guy in the old Monte Python skit with the dead parrot. The parrot is always alive no matter what.

      1. It’s almost like Monty Python was parodying the idiocies of socialist elites.

        1. My prophecies will come true someday….someday….someday.

    2. They, like a number of people like apocalyptic preachers or Mayan 2012-ers, figured out that proclaiming disaster makes you famous and can make you rich too. There are people out there who want to believe in this shit; a LOT of people.

      Why would they stop? If they admit to being wrong, the gravy train ends, so they’re not going to do that. The idiots who believe them will continue to believe them.

      1. I guess you’re right. Their believers will accept anything as an explanation (see Paul, below), anyways. So, they’re mostly despicable. How to tell whether they believe or not in their own garbage, though, I wonder.

      2. All of this shit from Ehrlich and the rest is to the highbrow set what Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay flicks are to the hoi polloi: Disaster porn.

  9. This guy is a senior researcher. He is part of the “science” that people like Neu Mexican and MNG scream is so settled. And he says this.

    “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

    1. The earth is very large and if you look at any decade or year for that matter there is gaurenteed to be a draught going on somewhere. And pointing out this self evident fact is what for him constitutes a defense of a very specific and completely rediculous prediction.

    2. Even if the percentage of the earth that is in draught has increased (which as Ron points out probably isn’t true), that doesn’t say anything about it whether it is even out of the normal range of areas that are in draught at anyone time. It is not like these things are constant. And again is what for him constitutes a defense of a very specific and completely rediculous prediction. And remember this guy is one of the top researchers in the world. And this is his idea of argurment and scientific debate.

    At this point I use global warming as a test to determine if someone is a serious person. If after the climategate e-mails and all that has happened in the last two years you still believe in this nonsense, you are just not a serious person.

    1. LOL@”climategate”.

      What was that supposed to prove, exactly/ The researches have been completely exhonerated.

      1. They have been exonerated of what? The emails showed that none of their models worked and they know it. They also showed them to be incompetant staticians and even worse code writers. And oh by the way, they destroyed all of their base data.

        So what exactly where they supposed to be exonerated of? They did do an investigation. Into what is unclear. But the purpose was to provide clowns like you with an easy talking point. I kind of feel sorry for them. When your followers are by definition as dumb as you are Paul, you have to make sure you give them simple talking points like “they were exonerated” so actual debate and thought are never required.

        1. Except it did nothing of the kind.

          But keep believing that there’s a grand,global conspiracy (up to the highest levels of just about every government in the world, the UN, academia, etc) for ummm….what exactly?

          You’re no different than some Troofer babbling about “Building Seven”.

        2. I just love how you have no clue, none, about what “climategate” even was. The ignorance you demonstrated is beyond stunning.

          Either you’re Rush Limbaugh dittohead or a Koch-funded mouthpiece. Either way you’re a toolbag for polluting billionaires.

          1. John I bet you’re being funded by Koch and conspiring with a network of Big Oil (TM) to spread the lie that there’s some sort of stupid fucking conspiracy going on here. Only idiots believe in conspiracies.

          2. Keep repeating it long enough and it will come true.

      2. Small point of order, “Paul” is taken, and has been for years. You would know this if you’d spent a bit of time reading the comments before posting.
        Please select another moniker, like “Paul2” or “Dipshit”, something that will differentiate you from the original.
        Thank you.

        1. I was confused by this as well. He’s actually one of my faves on here.

      3. Re: Paul,

        What was that supposed to prove, exactly/ The researches have been completely exhonerated.

        Yes, they were: A group of government scientists were investigated by a government appointed panel to look into wrongdoing by government paid scientists, and the government paid investogators found the government paid scientists not at fault for investigating government-funded investigation. So government won. Easily.

      4. The researches have been completely exhonerated.

        Nope. They got a whitewash from the institutions that benefitted from their fraud.


    2. Here, I’ll save you some time and make some more “points” for you:

      Al Gore is fat and flies a jet, therefore Climate Change is false!

      If global warming is real, why is it cold, lol?

      1. I would like to think you are one of the regulars trolling. But I think you are perhaps real. And just that incapable of understanding much less responding to argument.

        1. Trolling? Your entire argument boils down to brilliant thoughts like these:

      2. Obama eats cheeseburgers and Michelle travels like Cleopatra with her entourage, so climate change is used as a political gambit to suck the life out of the citizenry for the benefit of fat-cat politicians.

      3. Paul, the Gore part of your post just points out what an immense, glaring, FUCKING Hypocrite Gore is for not living a Spartan lifestyle.

        As for your second point… eh, skip it. You’re beyond help.

    3. I have read the comments of warmists on blogs and comment threads. These people are unreal. Even admitting that there have been issues at CRU is off limits no THEY ARE PERFECT and you must have Total Loyalty to THE SCIENCE (TM) *as defined by warmists of course. If you bring up a specific malfeasance uncovered in the CRU leaks (ex the order to destroy emails) the warmist will dismiss as ‘scientists can be jerks too’ and then never address it again. Orwell’s 1984 was brilliant but in retrospect the ‘memory hole’was totally unnecessary; people provide it for themselves.

    4. There is a draught in this bottle right here. Don’t tell there is not a draught. Good stuff love it John never ever stop.

        1. Probably better than Miller Genuine Draught.

  10. Quoting from the snow article:

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    BTW, out here n the real world, 2010 was the hottest year n recorded history n the hottest decade.

    But of course since there is no “libertarian” or “small government” solution to Climate Change, it MUST be false, right?

    1. Bailey posts the sattilite data ever month and it shows nothing of the sort. It was only the hottest year according the voices that live inside your head.


        I don’t give a shit what the big oil shill at this magazine says. He’s bought and paid for by the Koch Bros. who own coal and oil interests. That’s almost as stupid as quoting Robert Mugabe on proper monetary policy.

        1. Wow. I didn’t actually think lunatics like you existed for real.

          So, not only do you hear voices in your head (Al Gore flies a jet therefore…), but you do use phrases like “big oil shill” and “paid for by the Koch Bros.” when you see something that contradicts your beliefs. It’s even funnier when just a few lines above, you accuse John of believing in conspiracy theories. You’re not very smart, are you?

        2. Not bad. B+. You would have gotten an A but the “big oil shill” was a giveaway.

        3. Bailey believes in global warming, actually, which you’d know if you did just a little reading. He’s hardly a big oil shill.

        4. Knowing Bailey, the Koch Bros. would need a distillery in order to sway him. It is possible to recognize global warning without buying into all the crackpot statist remedies for it.

      2. Please learn to spell.

        It’s drought, not draught.
        It’s ridiculous, not rediculous.
        It’s satellite, not sattilite.

        1. A draught of Labatt would be delicious right about now…

          1. Anything made by Labatt is horse piss.

    2. First, who says there couldn’t be a noncompulsory, limited government solution to any problem? Including AGW? Isn’t there a pretty huge leap to assume that coercion and central planning are required here?

      Second, the proof of cataclysmic AGW is just about as good as the proof that string theory explains the universe. Even the general warming trend is starting to come into question from the last decade’s worth of data, so all this consensus nonsense is unraveling, anyway.

      Come back when your data is better and without interweaving politics into the proposed solutions. Political solutions will fail, anyway, because China, India, etc. will never cooperate without compelling evidence that they need to. The only solution, if we need one, will be technological adaptation.

      1. SuperFreakonomics discussing a number of small government/simple/inexpensive solutions to global warming. It also hints at the reasons the GW crowd would resist them.

  11. Let this be a lesson to those who advise hoarding gold while waiting for the next great Wiemar hyperinflation.

    1. Re: Danny,

      Let this be a lesson to those who advise hoarding gold while waiting for the next great Wiemar hyperinflation.

      It is spelled “Weimar”, Danny.

      You go ahead and do whatever you want.

  12. “However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They’re having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else.”

    Yes, they do have lots of problems, and almost all of them have been caused by statist pricks like you.

  13. Paul: Let’s wait until the records for the year have been compiled before declaring “the hottest year.” I’ll post the info when in comes in.

    1. The problem is, Ron, that it will be fed to you directly from the Koch estate, so nobody will believe it.


    2. Being a proper alarmist requires that you come to a conclusion first then cherry pick the data that supports your conclusion. So it doesn’t really matter if the data is in or not.

  14. It even snowed out here in the desert of PHX, AZ today.

  15. It even snowed out here in the desert of PHX, AZ today.

  16. I swear, like fucking Tommy Flanagan:

    “Global freez.. err… warm..… err… CHANGE! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    1. I mean, who can argue that climate won’t “change” eventually?

  17. My favorite is still the Krugman prediction that the Internet would have roughly the same economic impact as the fax machine.

    1. I don’t understand why modern day prognosticators don’t take the Nostradamus route, and make predictions that can’t possibly come to fruition (or not) until long after they’re in the dirt.

      Seems like it would make life less embarrassing…

      1. Also Nostradamus’ “prophecies” are so ambigously written that at least one of them can be construed to cover any series of events.

        TBS, if you watch the AGW doomsters, you will note that ANY weather event can be interpreted as a result of AGW:
        1) More hurricanes than normal: Warm oceans due to AGW.
        2) Fewere hurricanes than normal: Change in oceans due to AGW.
        3) Less snow than normal: Drought due to AGW.
        4) More snow than normal: Change in ocean currents or jet stream due to AGW.

        1. No different than 700 years ago when droughts/storms were blamed on Jews/Adulterers/Other sinners.

          An attempt at attribution within a non-linear system, propelled by deeply held cultural beliefs (Man is filthy and evil).

  18. Just a reminder: Paul Ehlrich is a butterfly biologist. He has no formal training in economics, or climatology, or anything even remotely fucking relevant to the subject of overpopulation.

    And based of his track record in predicting(batting a solid .000), there is no reason to call him an “expert”.

    He’s one of those “Experts” who set out some position, stuck to it with religious devotion, and managed to keep talking long enough to gain seniority.

    1. Or to summarize that by paraphrasing (probably poorly) Matt Ridley

      “In his long, storied career of being wrong, Paul Ehlrich has only ever learned one thing. In his 2008 book, he stopped giving specific dates in his predictions.”

  19. Except it did nothing of the kind.

  20. Environmentalists cherry pick data, take quotes out of context, mis-use analytical and statistical methods, spin and twist, and just plain lie in order to insert their message into the public conscience. None of the predictions/proposals/prognostications/warnings/prophecies they say can be relied on, except inasmuch as they are intended to reduce humanity to a state of primitive subsistence existence.

    1. Environmentalists are Libertarians?

  21. So where are Chad and Tony, they follow the same doomsday cult why are they not defending their prophets ?

    1. Obama is on vacation too. Coincidence?

    2. Our resident left-wing dickhead troll has picked another new screen name (“Paul”) to troll under.

  22. Like Ron, I think that AGW is real and supported by the data available.

    I think the potential consequences have been deliberately exaggerated first to sell books and secondly to push a political agenda. (and thirdly to get the AGW chatterers nice paid vacations to spots like Cancun. :P)

    I do think that human ingenuity will solve the problems of AGW and eventually reverse it, mainly by developing newer, cleaner technologies that are more economical than the ones we now use. [This has happened before when the automobile replaced the horse as a means of transporting goods and people. [Well, cleaner unless you prefer the stench of horseshit and the prevalence of tetanus and typoid.])

    1. I say a massive eugenics program, where we’re adapted to whatever changes come. On the fly.

      With super powers, too, of course.

      1. Select for a sense of humor.

        That will get Paul, Tony and Chad, along with most ‘environmentalists’ out of the gene pool within a generation.

    2. Your position is very reasonable but I don’t agree with it. Canada’s Financial Post has an excellent series called The Deniers that would seem to put AGW out of commish. I think that humanity is responsible for say a fraction of the warming, but that it will not lead to the negative consequences we always here about.

    3. I take more or less the same view as Aresen. We are going to keep burning fossil fuels until is is not economically viable to do so. Solutions (if solutions are even necessary or possible) will be technical and if they are not too badly disrupted by government subsidies will be very beneficial economically and environmentally.

  23. “Essay on Sir Crispin Tickell, the man who invented Global Warming”…..l-warming/


    Tickell, you see, is a diplomat and a scion of the British establishment, and as such works largely behind the scenes, like a real-life Sir Humphrey. His CV bulges with numerous honorary doctorates, chairmanships and directorships around the world, including the European arm of Pachauri’s [the shaggy one] TERI organization. After starting as a bright young thing with the civil service, he spent two years at Harvard, where he addressed himself to the up and coming subject of climate change, the result of which was his 1977 book Climactic Change and World Affairs, a work that detailed the threat posed to Western civilization by possible changes in the world climate. It made his name, and on his return Tickell was made Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission and afterwards advisor to the Thatcher government, where he was instrumental in persuading leading politicians to put global warming on the political agenda.

    So is AGW the most serious threat facing the world today, so far as Tickell is concerned? Well, almost. There is one other threat that he sees as even more urgent than AGW ? the human race itself. Specifically, those feckless, irresponsible classes and nations that continue to breed at more than the replacement level of 2.1 children (Tickell, it should be noted, has three children. Considerations of overpopulation do not apply to his class, of course). For him, overpopulation is the driving force behind AGW: we are a cancer on the planet. In language which we would normally expect to come from extremists, Tickell lays out his vision of the rest of the world[…]

    AGW has been nothing more than yet another iteration of neo-Malthusianism. As with cockroaches and Cobol, Malthusianism simply shows a suprising resiliance despite excellent refutations.

  24. “Oppenheimer told that he was trying to illustrate one possible outcome of failing to curb emissions, not making a specific prediction.”

    But since no emissions were curbed and your prediction never happened, your ad hoc explanation sounds quite unconvincing, Mr Oppenheimer.

  25. “UK Wind Turbines Consume More Energy Than They Produce”…..z19in0w8Rd

    This is the season for quizzes. So ?fingers on buzzers, here’s your starter for ten. In percentage terms, how much electricity do Britain’s 3,150 wind ?turbines supply to the ?National Grid?

    Is it: a) five per cent; b) ten per cent; or c) 20 per cent? Come on, I’m going to have to hurry you. No conferring.

    Time’s up. The correct answer is: none of the above. Yesterday afternoon, the figure was just 1.6 per cent, according to the official website of the wholesale electricity market.

    Over the past three weeks, with demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing.

    It gets better. As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.

    Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.

    At best, the combined output of these monstrosities is equal only to that of a single, medium-sized, gas-fired power station.

    To make matters worse, there is no way of storing the electricity generated on the rare occasions when they are working.

    The joke’s on us.

    1. “Even on a good day they rarely work above a quarter of their theoretical capacity. And in high winds they have to be switched off altogether to prevent damage.”


      1. Just wait until they get those giant fans going to make the wind generators spin like tops. That’s when you’ll see them really start to contribute to the grid.

  26. Um, out of those 8 examples five are from almost 40 years ago! It may surprise you to learn there have actually been advancements in climate science since then and predictions are getting more accurate.

    1. Which relatively recent predictions have turned out to be correct?

      More hurricanes? Nope. Snow a thing of the past? Nope. Predicted rise of sea level? Nope. Glacier disappearing by 2035? Nope.

      Please remind us of which recent predictions have turned out to be on point?

      1. I think we will have to wait until 2035 to find out about the glacier one (though it doesn’t look likely)

        1. Not really, as the IPCC retracted the year 2035 glacier prediction, admitting sourcing irregularity.


    2. Oh, I forgot to add, the prediction of the past 15 years being warmer? Again, incorrect, according to a main AGW “scientist,” Phil Jones (director at East Anglia Climate Research Unit).

      1. Oh, I forgot to add, the prediction of the past 15 years being warmer? Again, incorrect, according to a main AGW “scientist,” Phil Jones (director at East Anglia Climate Research Unit).

        I’m fairly certain that the people that make such claims would indeed claim that the last 10 years have been the warmest 10 year period on record, at least for the GISS record. Of course there are large groups of people who question the accuracy of that data, but you can’t just summarily dismiss it.

        1. Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about the past 10 years being the warmest on record. I was discussing the prediction of progressively increasing temperatures, while the past 15 years have shown this prediction to be false, as temps have flatlined.

          This isn’t an argument only advanced by “deniers.” As I mentioned above, Phil Jones, a big proponent of AGW and former director of climate research at East Anglia, stated that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 15 year period. He cannot explain why, and just dismisses it as a blip (while asking people to believe that 20 years is a trend, while 15 years is just a blip.)

          And yes GISS shows a 10 year increase, but it is the only one out of 4 metrics to do so:


  27. Were the last ten years the warmest on record (GISS)? Sure. Was there a statistically significant trend of increasing warming? Not really. Is ten years a large enough sample size to detect attributable trends? Not really.

    Insofar as we’re talking about failed predictions, here’s a graph to consider:…..odels1.bmp

    For every time you forecast the sky is falling and it doesn’t there’s a proportional decrease in your credibility. Note to enviros: trying to persuade people by pants-shittingly scary “scenarios” is a lot less effective than accuracy.

  28. Just finished reading an excellent book on this very subject that is worth reading by anyone interested in the prevalence of so-called “experts” with terrible track records (not just environmentalists).

    Future Babble by Dan Gardner…..amp;sr=8-1

    1. As this book doesn’t come out until next year, there’s only one logical conclusion to come to:

      You’re from the future.

      So, tell us, is AGW real? Who wins the superbowl? What day does Obama officially hold a constitution burning ceremony on the front lawn of the white house?

  29. Lol! While I do own a Delorean I simply didn’t realize that I posted a version of the book that must be meant for American release or something. The book is already out in Canada:…..0771035195

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.