"Here’s an excellent article from Daily Signal by famous black economist Walter Williams, who explains the connection:
As reported in The New York Times (Aug. 1969) Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich warned: “The trouble with almost all environmental problems is that by the time we have enough evidence to convince people, you’re dead. We must realize that unless we’re extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
In 2000, David Viner, a senior research scientist at University of East Anglia’s climate research unit, predicted that in a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
In 2004, the U.S. Pentagon warned President George W. Bush that major European cities would be beneath rising seas. Britain will be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020. In 2008, Al Gore predicted that the polar ice cap would be gone in a mere 10 years. A U.S. Department of Energy study led by the U.S. Navy predicted the Arctic Ocean would experience an ice-free summer by 2016.
In May 2014, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared during a joint appearance with Secretary of State John Kerry that “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”
Peter Gunter, professor at North Texas State University, predicted in the spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness:
Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. … By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
Ecologist Kenneth Watt’s 1970 prediction was, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000.” He added, “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
Williams concludes:
Today’s wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear’s. The major difference is today’s Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we’ll be much poorer and less free."
It used to be that one of the keystones of science was repeatability. That if you combine X,Y, and Z in the same proportions that you will get the same result every time. This then leads to the conclusion that science has a degree of predictive ability. So, if one does the same experiment multiple times in exactly the same way, and the results aren't the same that you have no way to predict what the results would be the next time you did the experiment.
Except when it comes to climate change. I can't think of a field of study with a worse track record of predicting outcomes than climate studies. Given that they base everything on models, many of which are based on faulty or incomplete data, it's no surprise that the predictions are wrong. Not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. Strangely enough some folx are convinced that eventually they'll get it right someday and that we need to spend trillions of tax dollars on the low chance that they might be right.
H/T WK
3 comments:
Given that the whole climate change narrative is just a money grab, it's clear the idea is to scare enough in power to hand over the money, while in the meantime, no positive effect on controlling climate will have taken place, and as Williams said, no one will be alive to notice they've been taken.
As an aside, I just saw some headline (actually, I think it was being covered on Gutfeld!, but I'm not sure) having to do with the inability of repeating research to check the results. In other words, it isn't happening much that the results are duplicated. Wish I knew where I saw it so I could read it.
There is definitely an element of a money grab at this point. They have to get what they can while idiots will give it to them.
Given the repeatability was once a primary foundation of science, that sounds like science in it's current form has strayed from its roots.
I was rather shocked by the admission, so I wish I was able to catch where to find it. I'll try to Google it, but I'm not sure I'm remembering exactly the headline, so...
Post a Comment