The Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Lewkowski]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...tal-forecasts/

A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really?

Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010? FoxNews.com has compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened.

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 FoxNews.com that climate science had improved since the prediction was made.


"Over the past decade, climate science has moved on considerably and there is now more understanding about the impact climate change will have on weather patterns in the coming years," British Council spokesman Mark Herbert said. "However, Dr Viner believes that his general predictions are still relevant."

Herbert also pointed to another prediction from Viner in the same article, in which Viner predicted that "heavy snow would return occasionally" and that it would "probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Other scientists said "a few years" was simply too short a time frame for kids to forget what snow was.

"I'd say at some point, say 50 years from now, it might be right. If he said a few years, that was an unwise prediction," said Michael Oppenheimer, director of Princeton University's Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy.

Of course, Oppenheimer himself is known for controversial global warming scenarios.

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 FoxNews.com 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.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

The group that did the study, Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc., said it could not comment in time for this story due to the holidays.

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was "definitely within the margin of error... I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction."

Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.

Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the following predictions."

Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

How could scientists have made such off-base claims? Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and president of Stanford University's Center for Conservation Biology, told FoxNews.com that ideas about climate science changed a great deal in the the '70s and '80s.

"Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich said of Watt's prediction. "There was considerable debate in the climatological community in the '60s about whether there would be cooling or warming … Discoveries in the '70s and '80s showed that the warming was going to be the overwhelming force."

Ehrlich told FoxNews.com that the consequences of future warming could be dire.

The proverbial excrement is "a lot closer to the fan than it was in 1968," he said. "And every single colleague I have agrees with that."

He added, "Scientists don't live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I've had full support of my colleagues continuously."

But Ehrlich admits that several of his own past environmental predictions have not come true:

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 FoxNews.com. "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.


*****************

Some of these predictions were LOL. And yet for some reason they are still in that business....

[agamemnus]

Answer:

Well, the failed predictions are amusing, but...

The same reason why Democritics shouldn't take what Rush Limbaugh says as the mainstream Republican party is the reason why select quotes by a handful of far-left scientists shouldn't be used to "debunk" global warming.

[']['ear]

Can we please quote some other 70s scientists whose predictions were wrong?

Peter Duesberg says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Biomedical research must be hogwash.

My prediction is that somebody who can't properly use the quote function is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Nessus]

Did someone shoot that kid? Fucking finally, I say. Everyone needs to get shot. It's good for the lower intestine, said this one scientist before Lewkowski and other pubbies shot his whole family in front of him. And then they shot him. Because that is the proper thing to do. Just shoot everybody!

[Aimless]

Some of these predictions were LOL. And yet for some reason they are still in that business....

Probably because they're even better at what they do today than they were back then.

I invite you to reflect on how anyone involved with "journalism" at Fox can still be in business, given their proven track record of being either liars or dumb as shit

[Khendraja'aro]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...tal-forecasts/

A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really?

Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. [...]

Stopped reading right there.

[']['ear]

Ha! Khen, I almost posted exactly that point.

But you know they do this intentionally, right? Conflating weather with climate to influence the ignorant?

[Illusions]

But you know they do this intentionally, right? Conflating weather with climate to influence the ignorant?

Or that if they somehow proved climate change to not be caused by humans, that it would then be okay to pollute more, or continue polluting...since, lets be realistic here...the whole reason that people like Lewk get riled up about climate change and global warming are because it can be used as a reason to regulate industries...not some disagreement with the science behind it.

[Knux897]

I don't understand why people are so conerned with global warming... if the ocean levels rise high enough will that not change the wind patterns of the Earth and in fact make large portions of it colder?

[agamemnus]

I don't understand why people are so conerned with global warming... if the ocean levels rise high enough will that not change the wind patterns of the Earth and in fact make large portions of it colder?

*facedesk*

[Lewkowski]

Can we please quote some other 70s scientists whose predictions were wrong?

Peter Duesberg says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Biomedical research must be hogwash.

My prediction is that somebody who can't properly use the quote function is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

And the ones in the 80s/90s? The most recent prediction they examined is at year 2000. When your talking about climate you can't "prove" or "disprove" anything for years down the road. So when actually testing models predictions from the past ARE important. Anyone can create a model that fits data from the past that is just playing with numbers. The only way to truly prove accuracy is to make a prediction and then see that prediction come true on a scale of at least 10 years. So far the climate alarmists have not been accurate.

I find it amusing to go back in time to see what the alarmist have predicted in the past to see how much we should weigh their opinions now when we discuss what countries should do about "climate change."

[Nessus]

Did they shoot the boy yet?

[Aimless]

Hehehe i would like to examine the benefits vs. the harms of the right to bear arms <3



Dunno 'bout ALARMISTS, but i do know climate change is turning out to be a major problem. I hope the selfish westerners take the necessary steps to avoid killing millions of poor people a couple of generations down the line.

[Lebanese Dragon]

So the argument that global warming is false is because in the past indiviudal meteorlogist being wrong.

Two key differences as to why this is a dishonest way to which convinces only the ignorant. First of all, in the case of global warming, this was the collective meteorlogy community speaking out not just a few prominent ones. They've held many summits, discussions, and all different experts and their respective teams have come together on this issue saying from their field and research they are reporting the same findings. That's the first biggest difference, the probability of one meteorologist being wrong, is much higher than the whole field. Second point is just because they have been wrong in the past doesn't mean they are wrong now.

At most it suggest they could be wrong, and that's all this collection of evidence should be taken as. But no they're trying to bundle something much more credible and stronger with very bold and radical claims that turned out to be false. I wish the last question to these people (if they really were unbiased in their field) do they believe Global warming is true.

I agree that meteorologist being fallable is relevant to the conversation, but it is not sufficient to disprove or to say global warming is not happening. There is a different order of magnitude in the way it's being discussed and analyzed (who heard of that claim in 2000 that there would be no snow in 10 years? And whose heard of Global of warming?) That shows you the difference in money being invested into this and all the effort that's been done in expressing the claim and studying the claim. It's held up. I agree what you've shown is that the field can be wrong, but this would be wrong on a larger scale, which is much less probable, and again it's not enough to prove it's wrong.

That's like daying Des Cartes was wrong in analyzing some celestial body movements so he's wrong about everything. Not very good logic other than to suggest he can make mistakes.

[Illusions]

when we discuss what countries should do about "climate change."

Most of the changes that are suggested for dealing with climate change are in the long term beneficial to everyone, and some of them just require corporations to be more responsible with the waste products they produce. With your ridiculous view of property rights I'm uncertain how you are able to come to grips with the idea that a small handful of people should be allowed to do negative things to everyone's property in order for that small group of people to save/make more money, where-as you're okay with someone shooting someone else for just walking onto their property and refusing to leave immediately.

[Omega]

Did someone shoot that kid? Fucking finally, I say. Everyone needs to get shot. It's good for the lower intestine, said this one scientist before Lewkowski and other pubbies shot his whole family in front of him. And then they shot him. Because that is the proper thing to do. Just shoot everybody!

Are you going to conduct an inquisition on stupidity?

[']['ear]

Checked out the north polar ice cap lately, Lewk? What about the soon to be Glacier-less National Park?

[GGT]

[...]I find it amusing to go back in time to see what the alarmist have predicted in the past to see how much we should weigh their opinions now when we discuss what countries should do about "climate change."

Out of curiosity, what do you think of the alarmist Biblical stories like Noah's ark and the flood.....?

[Lewkowski]

Most of the changes that are suggested for dealing with climate change are in the long term beneficial to everyone, and some of them just require corporations to be more responsible with the waste products they produce. With your ridiculous view of property rights I'm uncertain how you are able to come to grips with the idea that a small handful of people should be allowed to do negative things to everyone's property in order for that small group of people to save/make more money, where-as you're okay with someone shooting someone else for just walking onto their property and refusing to leave immediately.

Cap and Trade for example is not a something that would only effect a small group of people. It would effectively raise taxes and almost all tax payers.

[GGT]

Queensland Tackles `Biblical' Flooding Disaster as Yet More Rain Forecast
By Robert Fenner - Jan 2, 2011 1:40 PM ET


Australia’s Queensland state is tackling floods that have cut off towns and shut down mines as further heavy rain is forecast to fall on affected regions in the center of the nation’s third-most populous state.

“Severe thunderstorms are likely to produce damaging winds, very heavy rainfall, flash flooding and large hailstones,” the Bureau of Meteorology said on its website. Rockhampton, home to more than 75,000 people about 500 kilometers (300 miles) north of the state capital, Brisbane, is cut off from road, rail and air links as the nearby Fitzroy river swells.

Towns across Queensland in Australia’s northeast have been evacuated as flooding spreads over an area the size of France and Germany combined. The disaster, which has affected 200,000 people, is of “biblical proportions” with the state facing the cost of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and the loss of income from mining and tourism, Treasurer Andrew Fraser said.

Weeks of rain destroyed cotton crops, halted coal deliveries, shut mines and prompted BHP Billiton Ltd., Xstrata Plc, Rio Tinto Group and Peabody Energy Corp. to declare force majeure, a legal clause allowing them to miss contracted deliveries.

Missed Royalty Payments

In addition to the rebuilding cost, the state will miss royalty payments from those mines, with Fraser estimating it may take three months for some to resume normal production.

Queensland, which accounts for about 20 percent of Australia’s A$1.3 trillion ($1.3 trillion) economy, expects the impact on the state’s finances to eclipse the A$800 million it spent on natural disasters last year, Fraser said on Jan. 1.

“We are urging everyone to stay clear of all flood waters,” Rockhampton Mayor Brad Carter said in a statement yesterday. “This is a major flood event and given the predictions it’s important that residents act now and not be complacent.”

One person died and two were missing in separate incidents with the body of a 41-year old woman found after her car was swept into a river at Burketown in the state’s northwest, the Courier Mail newspaper reported yesterday citing police.

Rescuers have stopped looking for a missing swimmer in the Fitzroy river while a search is continuing for a 38-year old man who disappeared near Gladstone, the newspaper said.

Flood waters in the Fitzroy are expected peak at 9.4 meters by Jan. 4, Rockhampton’s municipal government said.

Flood Alerts

Flood alerts have been issued for at least 10 rivers in Queensland after some regions recorded record rainfall during December, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

States of natural disaster have been declared in 41 of Queensland’s 73 municipalities covering about a million square kilometers (366,000 square miles).

Higher spending on disaster relief may pose a threat to Fraser’s efforts to regain the AAA credit rating the state lost in 2009. Queensland has nearly completed A$15 billion of asset sales to win back the top rating from Standard & Poor’s.

New South Wales and Victoria, the nation’s most populous states, offered relief personnel to help with the flood response while Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday announced payments of as much as A$1,000 per person for those that have lost their homes. Victoria has sent five flood specialists and New South Wales is providing 20 disaster management workers to help emergency services in Queensland.

Small Business Aid

Today, Gillard and Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced additional assistance for small businesses and primary producers. Cash grants will help pay cleanup expenses and recovery costs including providing feed to stranded livestock, the Queensland government said on its website.

While coastal areas such as Rockhampton may not yet feel the full effect of the floods, inland areas are starting to recover after peak water levels passed.

The town of Emerald, located about 270 kilometers inland from Rockhampton, reopened some roads although residents aren’t being encouraged to return to their homes, the Central Highlands municipal government said on its website.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-forecast.html

[Aimless]

Cap and Trade for example is not a something that would only effect a small group of people. It would effectively raise taxes and almost all tax payers.

What are you talking about, it would create a fantastic new industry/market and ensure that people actually pay for what they do, it is an economist's wet dream. You should be entirely approving. This way companies get to pay fair prices for the privilege of fucking up my future property without my permission. You should be applauding these initiatives. No such thing as a free pollution lunch.

[']['ear]

What are you talking about, it would create a fantastic new industry/market and ensure that people actually pay for what they do, it is an economist's wet dream. You should be entirely approving. This way companies get to pay fair prices for the privilege of fucking up my future property without my permission. You should be applauding these initiatives. No such thing as a free pollution lunch.

What you don't realize about Lewk is that he prefers his freedom with real costs shoveled under the rug.

[Aimless]

I don't actually know if cap-and-trade is a great idea, given our expertise with cheating markets.

[']['ear]

True enough.

Well, as long as deniers are so hard up for evidence that they are slinging innuendo rather than actual science, we're OK.