After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The normal cycles of the earth can and do drive many otherwise intelligent people to make really bad statements. This story goes over some whoppers that people have said and were dumb enough to give dates.
This reminds me of a crazy guy with the sign that says the world is going to end on May 23 2018. Most people ignore this brand of foolishness. But when it comes to global warming, hook is set.

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat
2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century
3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened
4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now
5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

dailycaller.com...

The story goes on for a bit

This is my favorite out of all of them. In 1989 a UN senior environmental official said that the UN could be washed away (in NY) by rising sea levels by the year 2000. He should have been more cryptic, like a fortune teller.

12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition

The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

,

originally posted by: seasonal
The normal cycles of the earth can and do drive many otherwise intelligent people to make really bad statements. This story goes over some whoppers that people have said and were dumb enough to give dates.
This reminds me of a crazy guy with the sign that says the world is going to end on May 23 2018. Most people ignore this brand of foolishness. But when it comes to global warming, hook is set.

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat
2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century
3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened
4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now
5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

dailycaller.com...

The story goes on for a bit

This is my favorite out of all of them. In 1989 a UN senior environmental official said that the UN could be washed away (in NY) by rising sea levels by the year 2000. He should have been more cryptic, like a fortune teller.

12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition

The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

,

7 - And marker molecules!!!



Heavy dose of skepticism should be applied to any and every comment, regarding a completely unsure future.
Nobody knows!

And all of those folks sitting at home, pointing to their computer and saying: "but, but, THE Science!!!" Sheesh...

And the time travelers all say that......too

skepticism plenty

a reply to: seasonal

Didn't AL GORE predict the end of mankind, or something like that, by 2016? I remember Rush Limbaugh's website giving Gore the benefit of the doubt, with a doomsday clock that counted down for years. It's gone now.

a reply to: Nothin

I imagine this is a "normal", if there is such a thing, earth cycle. Is man using the resources wisely, nope. Are we polluting slobs that would step over their own mother for profit, yep.
We have a long way to go, but our systems are not designed for optimization, they are designed to make a few rich.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: seasonal

Didn't AL GORE predict the end of mankind, or something like that, by 2016? I remember Rush Limbaugh's website giving Gore the benefit of the doubt, with a doomsday clock that counted down for years. It's gone now.

Here are some of Al's.

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!
2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18
years.
9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3
hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10.The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade
Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never
happened.

barbwire.com...


Global warming=money

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Nothin

I imagine this is a "normal", if there is such a thing, earth cycle. Is man using the resources wisely, nope. Are we polluting slobs that would step over their own mother for profit, yep.
We have a long way to go, but our systems are not designed for optimization, they are designed to make a few rich.

So a handful of us can see it.
That's all we got.
Personally have no idea what the next level might be?

AGW has always about controlling the masses through fear. The Globalists had to invent a 'cause' that would have the sheeple willing ceding their rights and standard of living to the Elites. It has worked on some, but most people have smartened up to the scam.

a reply to: seasonal


Wow.. The years drinking Jack Daniels straight-up has taken a horrible toll on Gore's brain cells.

Huh.
I thought that warming and climate change was accepted. It's just that the cause is "uncertain." It's all natural, right? You guys need to shift gears and get with the program.

I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change -- not the cause of it, but the things that we observe. And so there's rising flood waters -- I think one inch every 10 years in Tampa -- things that would require prudent mitigation measures.

www.whitehouse.gov...

originally posted by: Phage
Huh.
I thought that warming and climate change was accepted. It's just that the cause is "uncertain." It's all natural, right? You guys need to shift gears and get with the program.

I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change -- not the cause of it, but the things that we observe. And so there's rising flood waters -- I think one inch every 10 years in Tampa -- things that would require prudent mitigation measures.

www.whitehouse.gov...

I think your problem is you are using flawed logic to paint an entire group of people with one brush. People are individuals not how you identify them.

a reply to: Metallicus

Ah.
So, are you one of those who don't think that climates are changing in any way, detrimental or otherwise?
Or are you one of those who think that climates are changing but that humans have nothing to do with it?

I don't mean to present a false dichotomy. Feel free to improvise.

originally posted by: Phage
Huh.
I thought that warming and climate change was accepted. It's just that the cause is "uncertain." It's all natural, right? You guys need to shift gears and get with the program.

I will tell you that we continue to take seriously the climate change -- not the cause of it, but the things that we observe. And so there's rising flood waters -- I think one inch every 10 years in Tampa -- things that would require prudent mitigation measures.

www.whitehouse.gov...

When things that are promoted by governments, and mass-media, are "accepted": there is a cue that we should continue asking questions.
Natural? Sure: the climate changes.
Warming? Not so sure, because we would need to trust "Big-Science", governments, Al Gore, CO2 distributions, hockey-stick graphs, and nothing to mention of the measurement problem as well.
AGW? Get outta here!

a reply to: Nothin

So. Trust no one. Ever. Especially scientists. Depend on your own senses and nothing else.


That's a productive approach. Do you ever travel by air?

Tell you what. I live by the water side. In the past 2 years the high tides have been higher than I have ever seen them. Same goes for the low tides. My senses tell me that sea levels are rising.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

So. Trust no one. Ever. Especially scientists. Depend on your own senses and nothing else.


That's a productive approach. Do you ever travel by air?

Tell you what. I live by the water side. In the past 2 years the high tides have been higher than I have ever seen them. Same goes for the low tides. My senses tell me that sea levels are rising.

Nope: don't travel by air, but see what you're getting-at.
There is a difference between technological advances, that appear to work; and believing in a politician, waving a supposed scientific report in our faces, and trying to justify another new tax.
A huge difference.

While it's easy to believe anecdotal evidence, from one observer; it would also be wise to wonder what the anecdotal evidence of a few billion other folks might be.

Do you think we are talking about beliefs, or something larger?

a reply to: Nothin

While it's easy to believe anecdotal evidence, from one observer; it would also be wise to wonder what the anecdotal evidence of a few billion other folks might be.

Anecdotal evidence is what it is. You reject systematically collected data. Now what?

Do think we are talking about beliefs, or something larger?

Evidence is greater than belief. You reject the evidence as well as the science which it supports. Your privilege.

Do you think that climates are not changing on a global scale? Do you reject the evidence which shows the planet is warming? Why? Is it because you have not experienced any of the effects?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Nothin

While it's easy to believe anecdotal evidence, from one observer; it would also be wise to wonder what the anecdotal evidence of a few billion other folks might be.

Anecdotal evidence is what it is. You reject systematically collected data. Now what?

Do think we are talking about beliefs, or something larger?

Evidence is greater than belief. You reject the evidence as well as the science which it supports. Your privilege.

Do you think that climates are not changing on a global scale? Do you reject the evidence which shows the planet is warming? Why? Is it because you have not experienced any of the effects?

Anecdotal evidence may, or may not be relevant to anything in the natural world. Our eyes are full of prejudice, ego, and false-knowledge.
Could we be 100% sure that your land is not sinking?
Climate does change, naturally, over long spans of time.
Are the oceans rising worldwide? Whose data could ever be trusted?
Nobody truly knows.

Will try to temper personal experience, for similar reasons, of never being 100% sure about anything.
This area of the globe, (Québec), was, according to the global warming models, to be one of the few regions that would decrease in average temperature.
The Weather-Channel announced this week, that Montreal winters are now one month shorter than they were 50 years ago.
Feels like we might get less snow, and more freezing-rain, but we still get a boatload of snow!
So: nope; don't even trust personal experiences, to assume that things are known.

Deny knowledge.
Bless ignorance.

a reply to: Nothin

Ok.

Ignore it then. Maybe radiative forcing has no effect on anything. Maybe it's all natural. Maybe nothing is changing. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Good plan.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: seasonal

Didn't AL GORE predict the end of mankind, or something like that, by 2016?

No.

Your source is the Dailycaller, a right wing biased site that is known to publish false information.

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Also worth checking out:
www.snopes.com...