Rebuilding Florida…again

[jj3jordan 2,056]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

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

Of course he was.  1A does not apply to everyone, just those who agree with democrats.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

6 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Of course he was.  1A does not apply to everyone, just those who agree with democrats.

Truth is not a partisan concept. 

But, lying has become one.

[Leftfield 2,610]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:08 PM, 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

1.      Can’t open the link

2.      Can’t open (mentions Paul Ehrlich)

3.      Can’t open

4.      Can’t open

5.      Have to buy the article to read it (but title include “US Scientist,” so not plural)

6.      I don’t see anything in the presentation that references the statement of a new Ice Age by 2070. It appears to simply lay out the justification at the time for establishing a “Climate Diagnostics Workshop”

7.      Can’t open

8.      Finally an article (from 1974) I can read. Certainly mentions scientists who believed cooling was occurring, but also mentions those who believe it may be temporary, and states “all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate.”

9.      Can’t open. Not sure what the argument is, though. Action on mitigating ozone depletion has been a huge success after the Montreal Protocols were established.

10.   The consensus was that cooling had been occurring and that “there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one.” There is no study cited, and no prediction made.

11.   Can’t open either link

12.   Can’t open the main link, but the fact the article name is “No End in Sight to 30-year Cooling Trend,” I assume the accompanying link that has a graph of temperatures from 1979 onward that shows a warming trend is meant to show how wrong they were. The irony in that is it shows the climate has been steadily warming since.

13.   First one I’ll admit I need to take a deeper dive on. At first glance I do have concerns about Jim Hansen.

14.   Same article as 13

15.   Mentions a local Environmental Affairs Director. No study is mentioned, other than to say the United Nations Environmental Project was planning one.

16.   Can’t open

17.   Guy that was questioned in the article was referencing the same person from #13 (Hansen), so it’s the same source.

18.   “Children Won’t Know what Snow Is.” Admittedly hyperbole. The point was that snowfall amounts are steadily decreasing. Just from a quick internet search, it appears this has continued, though it was by no means a thorough search on my part.

19.   “Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy.” I don’t even see where this is referenced in the article. It does mention possible catastrophe in 20 years (which would be about now) if climate change brought drought and famine and forced conflicts over those dwindling resources (I would point out that this was coming from the Pentagon - hardly a liberal bastion). Fortunately that has not happened, though it’s smart to prepare for that likely eventuality. I’ve said before that the overall timeline of events is debatable, but warming is happening.

20.   Same article as 19. The term “Siberian” confuses me. Seems to indicate Britain will get colder, though everything else in the article references warming and Britain’s climate isn’t mentioned again.

21.   Another Hansen prediction. Arctic ice clearly hasn’t disappeared, though it is in trouble. There’s very little long-term ice remaining. The majority is “new” ice.

22.   Like Hansen, Gore was wrong, though again, the ice is steadily declining.

23.   I don’t like statements like what Prince (at the time) Charles said. Impossible to prove or disprove. He could very well be right and we’re past the point where we can avoid collapse of some ecosystems, but even if it happens it will be impossible to know if his time frame was correct.

24.   No article shown when I opened the link.

25.   This appears to be a mis-link, as it is the same at #26.

26.   This article points out right in the second paragraph that not everyone agrees with the Professor being interviewed, and immediately cites two scientists who disagree. The interviewer even asks further down why his estimate is so much different than “most other model projections.”

27.   Was a statement from the French Foreign Minister at the time, not a scientist. The publication even says they don’t know where he came up with that number.

28.   A book about population explosion, written by an Entomologist in 1968? What does this have to do with “Weather Cultists?”

29.   “World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources.” What does this have to do with “Weather Cultists?”

30.   “Oil Gone in Ten Years.” What does this have to do with “Weather Cultists?”

31.   Same article as #30

32.   Same article as #30

33.   Same article as #30

34.   Same article as #30

35.   Same article as #30

36.   Confused by this one. This seems to be pointing out that (emphasis mine) “The world could see as many as 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms each year by the end of the century because of climate change, says a study out today.” The evidence that this was wrong was that….no major hurricanes had hit the US in nine years and there were fewer overall major storms the last two years (2013 and 2014)? Granted the number of storms has plateaued the past decade, but that can be affected by other climate factors. I think it’s wayyyy to early to say they won’t increase. I’ll point out that there does seem to be some uncertainty between scientist on whether the number of major storms will increase, but the vast majority agree that the overall strength will.

37.   Criticism of a sensationalistic media is certainly warranted, and there is some of that here. However, I would like to see the actual show and the context of some of these claims, because I strongly suspect they were not predicting some of them (including Manhattan being underwater) to occur by 2015. I tried to look up the trailer on youtube and the one I found was  different. Unlike the $12.99 gallon of milk and the $9 gallon of gas, it’s never actually stated that they predicted Manhattan to be under by 2015. The evidence is a time-lapse graphic showing water moving in over the area, with an “Earth 2015” graphic at the bottom. If that graphic was actually there originally, then the argument would be valid.

38.   This references 18 predictions made around 1970. Almost all of these don’t even reference the climate. The one that does goes back to Global Cooling, and was given by an ecologist, not a climate expert. I’d also point out that 6 of the 18 predictions are attributed to Paul Ehrlich, the entomologist that was cited in #28.

39.   Same article as #38

40.   An article that cites the article from #38 for its claim

41.   Killer bees. Really? What does this have to do with “Weather Cultists?”

42.   Broken link, but something else that is apparently referencing the Global Cooling prediction.

43.   Yes another article about Paul Ehrlich’s predictions. Mentions plagues, pollution, runaway population, but still no mention of climate change issues.

44.   The entire 211 page text of “The Limits of Growth,” published in 1972. The description of the link talks about shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum. No mention of climate change in the text, except on page 81 where it says “It is not known how much C02 or thermal pollution can be released without causing irreversible changes in the earth's climate…” I found no prediction as to whether the Earth would cool down or warm up.

45.   Can’t open

46.   An interview with a Washington Post reporter. For his prediction he cites….Jim Hansen.

47.   Description misrepresents the article. The description says “Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020.” The article states “environmental refugees.” Certainly the climate contributes to that, but it also includes refugees from heavily polluted areas, where the soil and/or water are contaminated, as well as from natural disasters. It could be semantics. However, I did find a couple of articles that said the number of climate refugees in 2020 was….55 million.

48.   Same article as #18.

49.   Broken link

50.   Claims the Washington Post was wrong for making the prediction, in 2011, that Cherry Blossoms would begin blooming in winter, even though the blooming process already begins in February. The article states (emphasis mine): “Now comes a team of scientists theorizing that with drastic warming of the globe, future decades could see blossom times not just a few days early but advanced by almost a month.” So, how are they proven wrong already?

 

So, out of 50 claims, here’s my tally:

·        Can’t open the links for eleven

·        Three broken or dead links

·        26 claims from 1980 or before

·        Eleven that don’t even reference climate change

In addition, many of the claims cite Paul Ehrlich, who wasn’t even a climate scientist. Whoever put this list together really had a hard-on for Ehrlich.

I will definitely be looking more into Jim Hansen, who is also mentioned in a ton of these articles. On the surface, it’s problematic to see someone that prominent making some of those predictions that didn’t pan out. I would like to know why some feel he was vindicated even if the results did not match his predictions. Overall, though, this is a really weak list.

There are certainly valid points in here about too much sensationalism being used for the climate push. I would wager that most climate scientists agree. Every movement has their firebrands that push the hyperbole way too far, or outright lie, to motivate people. It makes the bulk of the people who actually have the knowledge cringe. Likely those firebrands think they’re doing what’s necessary, but I believe it’s actually a detriment, and we’re seeing the results due to climate skepticism.

For the record, @I_M4_AU, keywest didn’t pluralize “predictions” and used incorrect punctuation (comma instead of a period between WRONG and Why?) 

So, what did you think of the website (https://skepticalscience.com/) that @homersapien posted?

Edited November 5, 2022 by Leftfield

[homersapien 11,388]

You are very patient Leftfield.  My hat's off to you.

[Leftfield 2,610]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are very patient Leftfield.  My hat's off to you.

Much appreciated.

To be honest, I need to research more, which is part of the reason I read through it all. I should really know more about Hansen. I'd of course heard his name, but for him to be so prominent in the field I should know more about him. 

 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 2,610]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:08 PM, keywest said:

17. 1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)

46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
 

https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

Hansen was answering a hypothetical, which was a time frame of 40 years instead of 20, and assuming doubled CO2 levels. The author was remembering incorrectly, though the 40 year time frame was in his book.

 

[RunInRed 16,430]

On 10/2/2022 at 11:11 AM, TexasTiger said:

Are there places so subject to disaster that we don’t continue to rebuild? Are there places federal flood insurance should no longer be available due to the risk? Even if this was done, however, hurricanes lead to flooding in places not in a flood plane. This question isn’t exclusive to Florida.
 

What should be invested in sea walls? Flood control? Is this the responsibility of the federal government or state? Municipalities?

It seems to me we are in a cyclical process where we keep courting disaster. Perhaps there are some beautiful, but risky locations that should become government owned parks— enjoyed by all, but not repeatedly requiring billions to rebuild. 
 

Thoughts?

As a Floridian, I accept the risk.  I also pay about 4X the average homeowners insurance - which isn’t even very good by the way (make a claim and good luck ever getting coverage again), carry a separate flood policy and have to take on expensive measures to protect my property (eg impact windows, cbs construction, etc).

[TexasTiger 12,949]

50 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

As a Floridian, I accept the risk.  I also pay about 4X the average homeowners insurance - which isn’t even very good by the way (make a claim and good luck ever getting coverage again), carry a separate flood policy and have to take on expensive measures to protect my property (eg impact windows, cbs construction, etc).

How close are you to the coast?

[RunInRed 16,430]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How close are you to the coast?

5-6 miles inland 

[TexasTiger 12,949]

29 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

5-6 miles inland 

Would you favor limiting coastal development?

[RunInRed 16,430]

On 10/9/2022 at 11:55 PM, TexasTiger said:

Would you favor limiting coastal development?

I’m not sure how you do that without a pretty big encroachment on private property rights … it’s not like there are huge swaths of undeveloped coastal land like ANWR or something that you could just move to shield. I guess you could start denying new permits etc but that seems counterintuitive to implementing better building standards.  

I think a far better approach is continuing to harden the building codes like what happened after Hurricane Andrew in the early 90s.  That has actually made a difference.  Sure you’re always going to have those by necessity or stupidity who think it’s a good idea to put a mobile home on the coast but that’s an entirely different scenario — I’d be ok with regulating that type of permitting.

More to the point, I would handle it through a private insurance market vs public bailout.  If you want to live on the coast, or in an area that’s prone to wildfires, tornadoes, etc. — in a high risk area, that’s on you …

 

[TexasTiger 12,949]

54 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

I’m not sure how you do that without a pretty big encroachment on private property rights … it’s not like there are huge swaths of undeveloped coastal land like ANWR or something that you could just move to shield. I guess you could start denying new permits etc but that seems counterintuitive to implementing better building standards.  

I think a far better approach is continuing to harden the building codes like what happened after Hurricane Andrew in the early 90s.  That has actually made a difference.  Sure you’re always doing to have those by necessity or stupidity who think it’s a good idea to put a mobile home on the coast but that’s an entirely different scenario — I’d be ok with regulating that type of permitting.

More to the point, I would handle it through a private insurance market vs public bailout.  If you want to live on the coast, or in an area that’s prone to wildfires, tornadoes, etc. — in a high risk area, that’s on you …

 

So no federal food insurance?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

According to 60 Minutes last night:

80% of ALL U.S. homeowners claims come from the state of Florida.

The coastal properties are technically uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing these people.  Without FEMA, the Florida insurance pool, the cost of insurance on the coast in Florida would not be realistic.

The major insurers have already left the state.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

According to 60 Minutes last night:

80% of ALL U.S. homeowners claims come from the state of Florida.

The coastal properties are technically uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing these people.  Without FEMA, the Florida insurance pool, the cost of insurance on the coast in Florida would not be realistic.

The major insurers have already left the state.

 

Man, talk about socialism! 

(Or would this be welfare for people rich enough to own a house?)

Edited October 10, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Man, talk about socialism! 

(Or would this be welfare for people rich enough to own a house?)

For some, a second or, third home.  But yes, socialism.

[jj3jordan 2,056]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

According to 60 Minutes last night:

80% of ALL U.S. homeowners claims come from the state of Florida.

The coastal properties are technically uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing these people.  Without FEMA, the Florida insurance pool, the cost of insurance on the coast in Florida would not be realistic.

The major insurers have already left the state.

 

I would question that statistic. Hard to believe with all the fires earthquakes and mudslides that california has less than 20% of homeowners claims. That means Cal Texas LA AL GA all make up <20%.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

According to 60 Minutes last night:

80% of ALL U.S. homeowners claims come from the state of Florida.

The coastal properties are technically uninsurable.  We are all subsidizing these people.  Without FEMA, the Florida insurance pool, the cost of insurance on the coast in Florida would not be realistic.

The major insurers have already left the state.

 

Are you and or 60 minutes confused? Do you mean lawsuits deriving from claims. Can understand that one. Insurance companies do go into damage control mode following weather events. 
 

Pretty sure California leads Florida in claims by a big margin.

[RunInRed 16,430]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

So no federal food insurance?

Correct.