Rebuilding Florida…again

[homersapien 11,388]

5 hours ago, keywest said:

Weather has changed since the beginning of time but "evil man" has never  been the cause! One of the many looney leftist "Weather Cult" insertions after Katrina, was there would be a high number of strong Cat 4 and Cat 5's (the numbers actually dramatically lowered) every single year in the Gulf but as with all the "predictions" became completely false. How can you believe such nonsense when every single statement and prediction has been completely wrong?

1. At the first Earth Day, the "Weather Cult" was COMPLETELY certain "evil man" was causing "Global Cooling", then came "Global Warming" and now the non-committal "Climate Change", which is it?

2. The "Weather Cult" has made 42 major completely 100% WRONG prediction in the last 50 years! If it is undeniably real, why has ALL 42 prediction been 100% wrong? 

3. The co-founder of Green Peace admitted many years ago that their data/research was fabricated because they could NEVER obtain the data they WANTED for their ideological driven quest to prove "Global Colling"/"Global Warming"/"Climate Change" existed. Ask yourself why is all "Weather Cult" research results today still contain directly/indirectly Green Peace data that is admitted fraudulent? 

So much ignorance, so little time.

(And it's not like these myths and fallacies haven't already been addressed many times on this forum. )

It's obvious you get your information from political and/or "deniers".

Rather than taking my time to educate you on every point, I am going to refer you to a single site that will do so, if only you are willing to learn the scientific facts and history instead of the propaganda you've been feeding on.

Please note it specifically addresses all the myths and misconceptions of deniers such as yourself.  Also note that everything is referenced.

https://skepticalscience.com/

 

[keywest 138]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

So much ignorance, so little time.

(And it's not like these myths and fallacies haven't already been addressed many times on this forum. )

It's obvious you get your information from political and/or "deniers".

Rather than taking my time to educate you on every point, I am going to refer you to a single site that will do so, if only you are willing to learn the scientific facts and history instead of the propaganda you've been feeding on.

Please note it specifically addresses all the myths and misconceptions of deniers such as yourself.  Also note that everything is referenced.

https://skepticalscience.com/

 

Yet, YOU DIDN'T answer one question? Enlighten the group by answering any of the questions with FACTS?

[keywest 138]

On 10/2/2022 at 11:46 AM, icanthearyou said:

The structures built on the coast are essentially uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing the individuals who own these properties. 

WRONG AGAIN!

[keywest 138]

On 10/3/2022 at 10:35 AM, icanthearyou said:

I think that is a highly debatable assertion.

I have both "home owners" and "Flood" on a coastal Florida island, How is this debatable? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 minutes ago, keywest said:

I have both "home owners" and "Flood" on a coastal Florida island, How is this debatable? 

We are all subsidizing your coverage.  Without government intervention, you likely could not get insurance.

[homersapien 11,388]

20 hours ago, keywest said:

Yet, YOU DIDN'T answer one question? Enlighten the group by answering any of the questions with FACTS?

Again, it's not my job to educate you. It's your job to educate yourself.  And you are clearly ignorant about AGW. 

And as I said earlier, (which you apparently didn't read):

"Rather than taking my time to educate you on every point, I am going to refer you to a single site that will do so, if only you are willing to learn the scientific facts and history instead of the propaganda you've been feeding on.

Did you go to the site I recommended?

https://skepticalscience.com/

Please note it specifically addresses all the myths and misconceptions of deniers such as yourself.  Also note that everything is referenced.

Finally, you are not interested in learning.  You need only to google "Gobal cooling controversy" to quickly obtain articles which explain (debunk) your first point (it wasn't a "question" it was an ignorant statement:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed

BOSTON – Temperatures have plunged to record lows on the East Coast, and once again Peter Gwynne is being heralded as a journalist ahead of his time. By some.

Gwynne was the science editor of Newsweek 39 years ago when he pulled together some interviews from scientists and wrote a nine-paragraph story about how the planet was getting cooler.

Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece – have been brandished gleefully by those who say it shows global warming is not happening, or at least that scientists – and often journalists – don't know what they are talking about.

Fox News loves to cite it. So does Rush Limbaugh. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has quoted the story on the Senate floor.

Gwynne, now 72, is a bit chagrinned that from a long career of distinguished science and technology reporting, he is most remembered for this one story.

"I have, in fact, won prizes for science writing," he said, with just a whiff of annoyance, in an interview this week.

His April 28, 1975 piece has been used by Forbes as evidence of what the magazine called "The Fiction of Climate Science." It has been set to music on a YouTube video. It has popped up in a slew of finger-wagging blogs and websites dedicated to everything from climate denial to one puzzling circuit of logic entitled "Impeach Obama, McCain and Boehner Today."

From the latest crop:

Lou Dobbs on Fox News: "This cycle of science… if we go back to 1970, the fear then was global cooling. "

Rush Limbaugh: "I call [global warming] a hoax… A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming. So they're really confused how to play it."

Sean Hannity on Fox News: "If you go back to Time Magazine, they actually were proclaiming the next ice age is coming, now it's become global warming… How do you believe the same people that were predicting just a couple decades ago that the new ice age is coming?"

Donald J. Trump: "This very expensive global warming bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing.…"

Most of the time, Gwynne, who still writes on technology and science from his home in Cape Cod, Mass., takes it good-naturedly.

"It's part of the game, once you get from science to politics, that's the way it's played," he said. "I just hope people don't think I think that way."

And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."

The story observed – accurately – that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude.

Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries.

"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking."

And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."

"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.

But the story was tantalizing enough that other variations – somewhat more nuanced – were written by the New York Times and National Geographic, among others. The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue.

But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.

Even today, "there is some degree of uncertainty about natural variability," acknowledged Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. "If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point:

"What's clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment."

And, Gwynne protested: "I wrote this in 1975!"

Born in England, Gwynne has written for a slew of American and foreign outlets. He left Newsweek in 1981, he ran Technology Review at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, covered space for High Technology, worked for The Scientist in Washington, moved to Hong Kong to run Asia Technology for Dow Jones, and returned to the United States to freelance in 1994.

He remains the North American correspondent for Physics World, based in England, from which perspective he views the "weird and wonderful" American relationship with science. "It's been American science and scientists – particularly NASA – that showed the climate is changing," he noted. Yet, unlike in most of Europe, American politicians remain divided over climate science.

The unsavory afterlife of his 1975 story clearly has not soured his journalistic fervor. "I've been able to write for a lot of different audiences, physicists, engineers and the general public," Gwynne said. "I've been willing to accept that some of that is misused and misinterpreted."

By and large, he added, the U.S. science press has done "a pretty good job" of covering climate change. But "the political press doesn't check. It tends to do 'on the one hand, on the other hand.' A lot of reporters simply will not go into issues like global warming with any understanding that the sides are not equal."

Journalists should not ignore climate deniers, he cautioned. "You have to give all sides a fair hearing." But that does not mean they have to be treated equally "if they don't have the data." To do so, he said, is false balance "that leaves readers out on a limb."

"Your job as a journalist is to give each side its best shot," said Gwynne. Even if the ammunition is four decades old.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a non-profit media company.

---------------------

Obviously you have no real interest in educating yourself to the facts.  You would rather cherry pick from the universe of bull**** to support your (pre-determined) political view on anything and everything.

Speaking of which, where have you been over the last couple of decades?  Denialism is so passe'.   That ship sailed long ago.  You hardly even hear about anyone denying AGW at this point.  You are in the same company of morons who actually believe the crap from QAnon.

Everyone is ignorant about one subject or another.  There's no shame in ignorance.  What you should be ashamed of is making no effort to educate yourself. 

You are choosing to remain ignorant, so why should I make any effort to educate you when you're not willing to be educated?  It's a total waste of my time. 

Edited October 7, 2022 by homersapien

[keywest 138]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, it's not my job to educate you. It's your job to educate yourself.  And you are clearly ignorant about AGW. 

And as I said earlier, (which you apparently didn't read):

"Rather than taking my time to educate you on every point, I am going to refer you to a single site that will do so, if only you are willing to learn the scientific facts and history instead of the propaganda you've been feeding on.

Did you go to the site I recommended?

https://skepticalscience.com/

Please note it specifically addresses all the myths and misconceptions of deniers such as yourself.  Also note that everything is referenced.

Finally, you are not interested in learning.  You need only to google "Gobal cooling controversy" to quickly obtain articles which explain (debunk) your first point (it wasn't a "question" it was an ignorant statement:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

 

How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed

BOSTON – Temperatures have plunged to record lows on the East Coast, and once again Peter Gwynne is being heralded as a journalist ahead of his time. By some.

Gwynne was the science editor of Newsweek 39 years ago when he pulled together some interviews from scientists and wrote a nine-paragraph story about how the planet was getting cooler.

Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece – have been brandished gleefully by those who say it shows global warming is not happening, or at least that scientists – and often journalists – don't know what they are talking about.

Fox News loves to cite it. So does Rush Limbaugh. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has quoted the story on the Senate floor.

Gwynne, now 72, is a bit chagrinned that from a long career of distinguished science and technology reporting, he is most remembered for this one story.

"I have, in fact, won prizes for science writing," he said, with just a whiff of annoyance, in an interview this week.

His April 28, 1975 piece has been used by Forbes as evidence of what the magazine called "The Fiction of Climate Science." It has been set to music on a YouTube video. It has popped up in a slew of finger-wagging blogs and websites dedicated to everything from climate denial to one puzzling circuit of logic entitled "Impeach Obama, McCain and Boehner Today."

From the latest crop:

Lou Dobbs on Fox News: "This cycle of science… if we go back to 1970, the fear then was global cooling. "

Rush Limbaugh: "I call [global warming] a hoax… A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming. So they're really confused how to play it."

Sean Hannity on Fox News: "If you go back to Time Magazine, they actually were proclaiming the next ice age is coming, now it's become global warming… How do you believe the same people that were predicting just a couple decades ago that the new ice age is coming?"

Donald J. Trump: "This very expensive global warming bull**** has got to stop. Our planet is freezing.…"

Most of the time, Gwynne, who still writes on technology and science from his home in Cape Cod, Mass., takes it good-naturedly.

"It's part of the game, once you get from science to politics, that's the way it's played," he said. "I just hope people don't think I think that way."

And still, Gwynne notes of his story, "I stand by it. It was accurate at the time."

The story observed – accurately – that there had been a gradual decrease in global average temperatures from about 1940, now believed to be a consequence of soot and aerosols that offered a partial shield to the earth as well as the gradual retreat of an abnormally warm interlude.

Some climatologists predicted the trend would continue, inching the earth toward the colder averages of the "Little Ice Age" from the 16th to 19th centuries.

"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking."

And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."

"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.

But the story was tantalizing enough that other variations – somewhat more nuanced – were written by the New York Times and National Geographic, among others. The theory picked up support from some pretty reputable scientists: the late, esteemed Stephen Schneider of Stanford endorsed a book on the issue.

But there also was a small but growing counter-theory that carbon dioxide and other pollutants accompanying the Industrial Age were creating a warming belt in the atmosphere, and by about 1980 it was clear that the earth's average temperature was headed upward.

Even today, "there is some degree of uncertainty about natural variability," acknowledged Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. "If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point:

"What's clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment."

And, Gwynne protested: "I wrote this in 1975!"

Born in England, Gwynne has written for a slew of American and foreign outlets. He left Newsweek in 1981, he ran Technology Review at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, covered space for High Technology, worked for The Scientist in Washington, moved to Hong Kong to run Asia Technology for Dow Jones, and returned to the United States to freelance in 1994.

He remains the North American correspondent for Physics World, based in England, from which perspective he views the "weird and wonderful" American relationship with science. "It's been American science and scientists – particularly NASA – that showed the climate is changing," he noted. Yet, unlike in most of Europe, American politicians remain divided over climate science.

The unsavory afterlife of his 1975 story clearly has not soured his journalistic fervor. "I've been able to write for a lot of different audiences, physicists, engineers and the general public," Gwynne said. "I've been willing to accept that some of that is misused and misinterpreted."

By and large, he added, the U.S. science press has done "a pretty good job" of covering climate change. But "the political press doesn't check. It tends to do 'on the one hand, on the other hand.' A lot of reporters simply will not go into issues like global warming with any understanding that the sides are not equal."

Journalists should not ignore climate deniers, he cautioned. "You have to give all sides a fair hearing." But that does not mean they have to be treated equally "if they don't have the data." To do so, he said, is false balance "that leaves readers out on a limb."

"Your job as a journalist is to give each side its best shot," said Gwynne. Even if the ammunition is four decades old.

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a non-profit media company.

---------------------

Obviously you have no real interest in educating yourself to the facts.  You would rather cherry pick from the universe of bull**** to support your (pre-determined) political view on anything and everything.

Speaking of which, where have you been over the last couple of decades?  Denialism is so passe'.   That ship sailed long ago.  You hardly even hear about anyone denying AGW at this point.  You are in the same company of morons who actually believe the crap from QAnon.

Everyone is ignorant about one subject or another.  There's no shame in ignorance.  What you should be ashamed of is making no effort to educate yourself. 

You are choosing to remain ignorant, so why should I make any effort to educate you when you're not willing to be educated?  It's a total waste of my time. 

And, STILL didn't answer the questions. Typical leftist loon copy/paste radical leftist garbage! There have been 41 major "Weather Cult" prediction in the last 50 years and every single one has been WRONG, Why?

Edited October 7, 2022 by keywest

[homersapien 11,388]

19 minutes ago, keywest said:

And, STILL didn't answer the questions. Typical leftist loon copy/paste radical leftist garbage! There have been 41 major "Weather Cult" prediction in the last 50 years and every single one has been WRONG, Why?

Yeah, Scientific American is known for publishing "radical leftist garbage".  You betcha.

You didn't even read it did you?

You are obviously not interested in "answers", which are readily available to anyone with the intelligence to understand the science.  Obviously you don't have that intelligence.

Bottom line, I don't care what you believe.  You can believe AGW is a hoax if you are determined to do so.  The rest of the world won't care and I - for one - am not going to waste any more of my time on ignorant fools like you.

Edited October 7, 2022 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,610]

21 minutes ago, keywest said:

! There have been 41 major "Weather Cult" prediction in the last 50 years and every single one has been WRONG, Why?

Please list these predictions.

[keywest 138]

6 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Please list these predictions.

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

[keywest 138]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, Scientific American is known for publishing "radical leftist garbage".  You betcha.

You didn't even read it did you?

You are obviously not interested in "answers", which are readily available to anyone with the intelligence to understand the science.  Obviously you don't have that intelligence.

Bottom line, I don't care what you believe.  You can believe AGW is a hoax if you are determined to do so.  The rest of the world won't care and I - for one - am not going to waste any more of my time on ignorant fools like you.

What is the weather cults party line today: (please confirm the leftist loons worship today)

1. Evil man is destroying the ozone?

2. "Global Cooling" as the settle "Peer reviewed" worship at the first earth day?

3. Maybe "Global Warming" as the settle "Peer reviewed" worship at the first earth day?

4. Non-committal "Climate Change" as the settle "Peer reviewed" worship at the first earth day? (ie..general weather change as has happened through history)

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

8 hours ago, keywest said:

And, STILL didn't answer the questions. Typical leftist loon copy/paste radical leftist garbage! There have been 41 major "Weather Cult" prediction in the last 50 years and every single one has been WRONG, Why?

And he never will. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

51 minutes ago, keywest said:

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Ouch lefty.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

18 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Please list these predictions.

Any comment lefty?  Doesn’t keywest deserve a response other than that he might have misspelled a word?

[homersapien 11,388]

12 hours ago, keywest said:

1. 1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
2. 1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
3. 1970: Ice Age By 2000
4. 1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
5. 1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
6. 1972: New Ice Age By 2070
7. 1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
8. 1974: Another Ice Age?
9. 1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life (data and graph)
10. 1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
11. 1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes (additional link)
12. 1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend (additional link)
13. 1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
14. 1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
15. 1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
16. 1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
18. 2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
19. 2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
20. 2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
21. 2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
22. 2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
23. 2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
24. 2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
25. 2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
26. 2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015 (additional link)
27. 2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
28. 1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
29. 1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
30. 1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
31. 1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
32. 1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 1990s
33. 1980: Peak Oil In 2000
34. 1996: Peak Oil in 2020
35. 2002: Peak Oil in 2010
36. 2006: Super Hurricanes!
37. 2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
38. 1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
39. 1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable

39 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Any comment lefty?  Doesn’t keywest deserve a response other than that he might have misspelled a word?

40. 1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
41. 1970s: Killer Bees!

Update: I’ve added 9 additional failed predictions (via Real Climate Science) below to make it an even 50 for the number of failed eco-pocalyptic doomsday predictions over the last 50 years.

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

Hmmmm.  I guess in your mind, that proves AGW is not real?

Not following the logic.

Secondly, who exactly is making those predictions?  They certainly weren't endorsed by a huge super majority of the world's climate scientists as well as every single significant scientific organization in the world.

But like I said, you believe whatever you chose to.  It won't change the science, which is now established beyond question.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

20 hours ago, keywest said:

And, STILL didn't answer the questions. Typical leftist loon copy/paste radical leftist garbage! There have been 41 major "Weather Cult" prediction in the last 50 years and every single one has been WRONG, Why?

Because such long term predictions made before the science has been fully developed are rarely accurate.  

And obviously, who is making the predictions is of enormous significance.  Not all predictions should be taken seriously, based on their origin.  (For starters, one can pretty much rule out the popular press.)  It would take a long time to vet each of those predictions individually. 

Regardless it is now 2022.  And the recent predictions/models concerning AGW are quite accurate (as we are witnessing.)

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

[homersapien 11,388]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

And he never will. 

You guys really need to contact news media outlet. 

Pretty much every climatologist in the world has gotten AGW wrong.  This is BIG news.

You will be famous. 

[Leftfield 2,610]

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Any comment lefty?  Doesn’t keywest deserve a response other than that he might have misspelled a word?

I'm reading, you muppet.

Good Lord, he posted last night at like 10:00. You think I'm on here constantly and started going through it right away? Not to mention, it's now Saturday morning and, having four kids still at home, there are a few things going on.

Forgive me if I actually keep an open mind and bother to read the things the opposite side has posted. Have you read through them all yet?

Edited October 9, 2022 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 2,610]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Ouch lefty.

Why ouch? I asked him to list the predictions so I could see them. He did. Now I can review. 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Hmmmm.  I guess in your mind, that proves AGW is not real?

Not following the logic.

Secondly, who exactly is making those predictions?  They certainly weren't endorsed by a huge super majority of the world's climate scientists as well as every single significant scientific organization in the world.

But like I said, you believe whatever you chose to.  It won't change the science, which is now established beyond question.

 

 

 

I remember hearing those predictions when i was younger. They definitely were endorsed by numerous scientists and the media as it existed at the time. Super huge majority? Typical hyperbole from Homer. No way to tell since we were not connected like we are now. Buy a majority? Yes I would say so. And you know that is true. Disingenuous as always.  Every single significant…so of course any organization that disagrees is “insignificant”.  Established beyond question…OK which prediction currently out there is beyond question? Is it the earth is dead in 12 years. Will you recant if we are still alive?

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Just now, Leftfield said:

Why ouch? I asked him to list the predictions so I could see them. He did. Now I can review. 

I imagined that you did not expect the list. I will patiently await your review.

[Leftfield 2,610]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I imagined that you did not expect the list. I will patiently await your review.

Very much expected the list, and absolutely expected it to be a cut-and-paste from a website because you don't cite a specific number like "41 major predictions" otherwise.

[homersapien 11,388]

Oh, BTW, not surprisingly your source of information - "Real Climate Science" is a "Denier" site.

I got suspicious as soon as I noticed there was no information about who funds and operates it.  So I started digging a little and found this:

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/

• Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change.

---

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Founded in 2015, Real Climate Science is a skeptical climate science blog created by Tony Heller (formerly known as Steven Goddard). According to their about page, Tony Heller is an electrical engineer who worked as a science teacher and geologist. The page further states, “climate science doesn’t work because it is done largely by dishonest, incompetent hacks who don’t follow or even understand any legitimate methodology.”

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Real Climate Science is owned by Tony Heller and is funded through advertising and donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Real Climate Science is the personal blog of Tony Heller, whose mission is to debunk the consensus that climate change is strongly human-influenced. Articles and headlines often feature highly emotional wording such as this Alarmists Using Children For Climate Fodder. This is a video story narrated by Tony Heller that claims the solutions for climate change are the same as communism. Politically, Real Climate Science aligns with the right through the support of former President Trump’s environmental deregulation and human-influenced climate change denial Obama’s Plan Vs. Trump’s Plan. In general, Tony Heller and his Real Climate Science blog believe that climate change is The Biggest Fraud In History. This theory is at odds with the consensus of science. According to a recent report by Cornell University, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

Most of the information published on this blog is not derived from peer-reviewed research; in fact, Mr. Heller explains why peer-reviewed studies in climate change are “worthless” Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless. In general, Real Climate Science is opposed to Real Climate Science.

Failed Fact Checks

• “[T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[…] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it’s all because they’ve altered the data.” – Inaccurate
• “NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – Pants on Fire
• “[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[…] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.” – Inaccurate

Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change. (D. Van Zandt 1/25/2020) Updated (01/14/2022)

Source: https://realclimatescience.com/

Last Updated on January 14, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check

 

And this:

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Real-Climate-Science-forum-sound-remotely-credible-when-the-Administrator-a-small-business-owner-says-Dont-trust-the-climate-scientists-because-they-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about

Does the "Real Climate Science" forum sound remotely credible when the Administrator, a small business owner, says "Don't trust the climate scientists because they don't know what they're talking about?"

(See site for answers to this and other questions regarding the site.)

--------------------

Bottom line, this site is just another internet site dedicated to bogus information (disinformation) and making money for the creator. 

Y'all should try this yourselves, obviously there's a market.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

7 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I remember hearing those predictions when i was younger. They definitely were endorsed by numerous scientists and the media as it existed at the time. Super huge majority? Typical hyperbole from Homer. No way to tell since we were not connected like we are now. Buy a majority? Yes I would say so. And you know that is true. Disingenuous as always.  Every single significant…so of course any organization that disagrees is “insignificant”.  Established beyond question…OK which prediction currently out there is beyond question? Is it the earth is dead in 12 years. Will you recant if we are still alive?

I don't believe you.

This sounds just like variations on the "Global Cooling" myth, which was perpetuated by the popular press, not the established scientific community.

None of it is based on peer-reviewed scientific publications or endorsed by respected scientific journals or organizations.  Such predictions are nothing more that unscientific speculation, even if they are made by a scientist. 

And I have never suggested the "earth will be dead" in 12 years.  That's a red herring, and stupid one at that.

Regarding the scientific consensus:

The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

Link to this page

What the science says...

The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

Climate Myth...

97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (Anthony Watts)

 

Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.  Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects.  After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades.  For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result

Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among actively publishing climatologists.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.  Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial.

Quantifying the Human Global Warming Contribution

There have also been various studies quantifying the human contribution to global warming, as we have previously documented.

Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green), and Jones et al. 2013 (J12, pink).

Again, there's very little controversy here.  The scientific literature is quite clear that humans have caused most of the global surface warming over the past half century, as the 2013 IPCC report stated with 95% confidence.

In Cook et al. (2013), we broadened the focus beyond definitions that quantify the human contribution, because there's a consensus gap on the mere question of whether humans are causing global warming.  Nevertheless, we used the 2007 IPCC position as one of our consensus position definitions:

"We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global [climate change], published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)."

The IPCC position (humans causing most global warming) was represented in our categories 1 and 7, which include papers that explicitly endorse or reject/minimize human-caused global warming, and also quantify the human contribution.  Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.  Among the larger sample size of author self-rated papers in categories 1 and 7 (237 in total), 228 (96%) endorsed the consensus view that humans are causing most of the current global warming.

The self-ratings offer a larger sample size on this quantification question because of the limited real estate in a paper's abstract.  Most journals have strict word limits on their abstracts, so authors have to focus on the specifics of their research.  On the other hand, the author self-ratings are based on the full papers, which have much more real estate and are thus more likely to both take a position on the cause of global warming, and quantify the human contribution.

Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%

There have been a number of contrarians claiming that they are part of the 97% consensus, which they believe is limited to the position that humans are causing some global warming.  The first error in this argument is in ignoring the fact that the data collected in Cook et al. (2013) included categories that quantify the human contribution, as Andrew Montford and the GWPF recently did, for example.

The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data.  For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congress that he is included in the 97% consensus.  Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence.  Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming.  Bjorn Lomborg made a similar error, claiming:

"Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)."

In reality Lomborg is included neither in the 97+% nor the less than 3% because as far as we can tell, he has not published any peer-reviewed climate research, and thus none of his writings were captured in our literature search.  The 97% is a consensus of climate science experts, and that, Lomborg is not.

Nir Shaviv took the opposite approach, claiming he was wrongly included in the 97%.  Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content, but claimed that he worded the text in a way to slip it past the journal reviewers and editors.

"I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

However, Shaviv, Spencer, and all other authors were invited to participate in the self-ratings process that resulted in the sae 97% consensus conclusion.

Tol's Rejected Comment

Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013).  It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey.  For example, he has argued that the literature search should have been conducted with Scopus rather than the Web of Science in order to capture more papers, but also that fewer papers should have been included in the survey in order to focus on those specifically researching the causes of global warming.  Tol has also applied various statistical tests comparing the abstract ratings to the author self-ratings, but these tests are invalid because the two phases of the survey considered different information (abstracts only vs. full papers) and are thus not comparable.

In fact, when we released the self-rating data, we explicitly discussed the difference between the two datasets and how the difference was actually instructive.  As John Cook wrote,

"That's not to say our ratings of abstracts exactly matched the self-ratings by the papers' authors. On the contrary, the two sets measure different things and not only are differences expected, they're instructive."

Ultimately Tol submitted his criticisms to Environmental Research Letters as a comment, but the submission was summarily rejected by the editor who described it as a speculative opinion piece that does not identify any clear errors that would call the paper's conclusions into question. 

In short, the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not.  Moreover, all of Tol's criticisms only apply to the abstract ratings, while the self-ratings also found the same 97% consensus result, completely independent from the abstract ratings.

Taking Consensus Denial to the Extreme

One critique of the consensus has been published in a paper in the journal Science & Education.  The argument made in the paper was first published by Christopher Monckton on a climate contrarian blog.  Monckton has also suggested the conspiracy theory that the journal Environmental Research Letters was created (in 2006) specifically for the purpose of publishing Cook et al. (2013).

The Monckton paper takes the point about quantification above to the extreme.  It focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search, thus claiming the consensus is not 97%, but rather 0.3%.  The logical flaws in this argument should be obvious, and thus should not have passed through the peer-review process. 

Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper).  Thus in order to estimate the consensus on human-caused global warming, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming.

When addressing the consensus regarding humans being responsible for the majority of recent global warming, the same argument holds true for abstracts that do not quantify the human contribution.  We simply can't know their position on the issue - that doesn't mean they endorse or reject the consensus position; they simply don't provide that information, and thus must first be removed before estimating the quantified consensus.

As noted above, when we perform this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers.  Monckton's argument is very similar to the myth that CO2 can't cause significant global warming because it only comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.  99% of the atmosphere is comprised of non-greenhouse gases, but these other gases are irrelevant to the question of the CO2 greenhouse effect.  The percentage of CO2 as a fraction of all gases in the atmosphere is an irrelevant figure, as is the percentage of abstracts quantifying human-caused global warming as a percentage of all abstracts captured in our literature search.

It's also worth noting that based on Monckton's logic, only 0.08% of abstracts reject human-caused global warming.

Climate Consensus Denialism

Overall, the critiques of Cook et al. (2013) have all exhibited the characteristics of scientific denialism.  Given the long history of consensus denial campaigns by fossil fuel interests and climate contrarians, continued resistance to the consensus is an expected result.  Nevertheless, the 97% consensus is a robust result from several different studies taking a variety of approaches, including two independent methods used by Cook et al. (abstract ratings and author self-ratings).  The criticisms of the paper have all exhibited the same few logical flaws, some more extreme than others, but all erroneous.

https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

---

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Oh, BTW, not surprisingly your source of information - "Real Climate Science" is a "Denier" site.

I got suspicious as soon as I noticed there was no information about who funds and operates it.  So I started digging a little and found this:

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/

• Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change.

---

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Founded in 2015, Real Climate Science is a skeptical climate science blog created by Tony Heller (formerly known as Steven Goddard). According to their about page, Tony Heller is an electrical engineer who worked as a science teacher and geologist. The page further states, “climate science doesn’t work because it is done largely by dishonest, incompetent hacks who don’t follow or even understand any legitimate methodology.”

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Real Climate Science is owned by Tony Heller and is funded through advertising and donations.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Real Climate Science is the personal blog of Tony Heller, whose mission is to debunk the consensus that climate change is strongly human-influenced. Articles and headlines often feature highly emotional wording such as this Alarmists Using Children For Climate Fodder. This is a video story narrated by Tony Heller that claims the solutions for climate change are the same as communism. Politically, Real Climate Science aligns with the right through the support of former President Trump’s environmental deregulation and human-influenced climate change denial Obama’s Plan Vs. Trump’s Plan. In general, Tony Heller and his Real Climate Science blog believe that climate change is The Biggest Fraud In History. This theory is at odds with the consensus of science. According to a recent report by Cornell University, “More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

Most of the information published on this blog is not derived from peer-reviewed research; in fact, Mr. Heller explains why peer-reviewed studies in climate change are “worthless” Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless. In general, Real Climate Science is opposed to Real Climate Science.

Failed Fact Checks

• “[T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[…] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it’s all because they’ve altered the data.” – Inaccurate
• “NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to overstate the extent of global warming.” – Pants on Fire
• “[NASA] has been adjusting temperatures from the past[…] downward, while adjusting current-day temperatures upward, and those changes are responsible for most of the claimed global warming during that time.” – Inaccurate

Overall, we rate Real Climate Science a Quackery level pseudoscience website as well as a moderate conspiracy website based on promoting that the solutions for climate change lead to communism. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to failed fact checks and a complete rejection of the consensus of science regarding human-influenced climate change. (D. Van Zandt 1/25/2020) Updated (01/14/2022)

Source: https://realclimatescience.com/

Last Updated on January 14, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check

 

And this:

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Real-Climate-Science-forum-sound-remotely-credible-when-the-Administrator-a-small-business-owner-says-Dont-trust-the-climate-scientists-because-they-dont-know-what-theyre-talking-about

Does the "Real Climate Science" forum sound remotely credible when the Administrator, a small business owner, says "Don't trust the climate scientists because they don't know what they're talking about?"

(See site for answers to this and other questions regarding the site.)

--------------------

Bottom line, this site is just another internet site dedicated to bogus information (disinformation) and making money for the creator. 

Y'all should try this yourselves, obviously there's a market.

 

Thank you.  Tony Heller was kicked off of YouTube for posting lies and misinformation.