Man-made Climate Change... yeah, right.

[Captain O]

Apocalyptic climate and environmental catastrophes of global proportions have decimated the world many times over in recent decades – at least based on dozens of predictions made by various scientists, experts, and officials over the past 80 years.


Newspaper clippings documenting the predictions were recently published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Many of those were first collected by geologist and electrical engineer Tony Heller, who frequently criticizes—on his RealClimateScience.com website—what he considers fraud in the current mainstream climate research.

The predictions, some going as far back as 1930s, not only at times contradict each other, but sometimes foretell the same imminent catastrophe repeatedly for years, even decades, seemingly undeterred by past failures.



Arctic Meltdown
"All the glaciers in Eastern Greenland are rapidly melting," the Harrisburg [Pennsylvania] Sunday Courier reported on Dec. 17, 1939.

"It may without exaggeration be said that the glaciers—like those in Norway—face the possibility of a catastrophic collapse," the paper quoted Prof. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish geologist, from a report to the Geographical Society after his Arctic expedition.

Ahlmann, a world authority on climate and glaciers in his time, was even more graphic eight years later.

"The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of the ocean with resultant widespread inundation, arising from an Arctic climate phenomenon was discussed yesterday by Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a noted Swedish geophysicist at the University of California Geophysical Institute," a 1947 article in The West Australian said.

"The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study the conditions on a global basis," Ahlmann said.

Stories about a melting Arctic were still in vogue with the media in the 1950s.

"The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years ago," said Dr. William Carlson, an Arctic expert, according to the Feb. 18, 1952, edition of The Cairns [Australia] Post.

"There are now six million square miles of ice in the Arctic. There once were 12 million square miles," said Arctic explorer Adm. Donald McMillan, according to the March 10, 1955, issue of Rochester, New York's Democrat and Chronicle.

'Population Bomb'
In the 1960s, a new environmental prediction was on the rise—overpopulation.

"It is already too late for the world to avoid a long period of famine," The Salt Lake Tribune reported in 1967, citing Paul Ehrlich's prediction of famines by 1975.

Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and author of "The Population Bomb," proposed lacing staple foods and drinking water with sterilizing agents to cut the growing population of the United States, according to the report.

Ehrlich was on fire by 1970, getting two dozen speaking requests per day and predicting that America would be rationing water by 1974 and food by 1980, California's Redlands Daily Facts reported.

But around the same time, a new prognosis was on the horizon.

Global Cooling
"Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century," The Boston Globe reported on Apr. 16, 1970, saying that pollution expert James Lodge predicted that "air pollution may obliterate the sun and cause a new ice age in the first third of the new century."

In 1972, two Brown University geologists wrote a letter to President Richard Nixon, reporting that a conference attended by "42 top American and European investigators" concluded "a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon."

"The present rate of cooling," they said, "seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace."

By 1975, the writing was on the wall, with major publications including The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Time magazine running their own stories on the predictions of a coming ice age.

"An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere," The New York Times reported in 1978.

A year later, the paper was reporting the opposite—a prediction of an Arctic meltdown, blaming global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

"There is a real possibility that some people now in their infancy will live to a time when the ice at the North Pole will have melted, a change that would cause swift and perhaps catastrophic changes in climate," the 1979 article said.

Apparently, The Chicago Tribune didn't get the memo, still reporting the "global cooling" narrative in 1981.

Arctic Meltdown 2
By the late 1980s, the narrative had switched to global warming for good, again predicting polar ice melting on a catastrophic scale.

"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," California's San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989. "Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program."

The first to disappear were to be the island nations teetering just a few feet above the ocean level.

The small nation of Maldives was threatened to be completely covered by "a gradual rise in average sea level," Agence France-Presse reported in 1988, noting that "the end of the Maldives and its people could come sooner if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted."

Yet 31 years later, the Maldives are thriving. Its population has doubled since the 1980s, and its picturesque islands are "set for a flurry of new resort openings," Hotelier Maldives reported in 2018.

After a pause from the 1950s to the 1980s, the predictions of an Arctic meltdown are back in full swing in recent decades. The region was meant to be ice-free in summer by 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2018, based on various predictions.

Yet the Greenland Climate Research Centre reported plenty of ice in the Arctic in August 2019.

Some scientists have argued the earth is currently undergoing warming largely caused by carbon emissions due to fossil fuel burning; other scientists disagree, assigning the dominant effect to other forces or even disregarding the warming as insignificant.

[Trapper6L]

I wish I could find the article I read a few years ago that pretty much said global warming is a joke, with proof to back it up. The proof is fossils they are finding that are older than the dinosaurs. These fossils are being found in South America at the Chuquicamata Mine. The open pit mine is over 850 meters deep. It is the second deepest open pit mine in the world. The company that owns the mine allows research teams to do minor excavations for these fossils. What makes this important is that the fossils they are finding are huge. Try a snake big enough to swallow a school bus. The snakes and other animals they are finding could only have gotten so big by having warmer temperatures and high humidity. The scientists claim that the earths average temp at that time was over 104F. But, as we all probably have learned over the years, there were forests in what is now the Arctic. There are fossils and petrified wood in many parts of the now frozen Arctic. What the "warmers" don't bother to tell you is that we are still coming out of the ice age.
In regards to the carbon footprint of the world. A research scientist from Texas A&M did a study on the movement of the carbon molecule which does effect the world temps. It's a naturally occurring process. The study began in the mountains of Mongolia. As snow melts and rains happen, it washes the ground carbon down until it reaches the seas. As ocean waters evaporates, the carbon follows the evaporate and rains deposits it back on the mountains. That a very short story about how it works but that's how it works. There's nothing man can do to change the process and nothing man does effects it. There will be times of hotter weather, naturally, due to higher content of carbon in the seas. That's why hurricanes can get stronger in some years and some years not much.
Global warming is a political football. And as such you have people with a vested interest (read money ) that they want in their pocket. It's all about the money, not the science. Take away the money and it will all disappear. Kinda like back in the 70's when we were told that we would run out of oil by the year 2000. There were all kinds of ads on TV and folks were all rattled up as to how they were going to function with no trucks, no cars, no groceries. Once they got the price of gas up, we now have more than we can use in the next 3000 years. Oil wells in Texas that ran dry are producing again meaning that the crude oil genesis is a renewable process that we still don't understand. Global Warming, I wish I could really say it's a joke but considering politicians are involved, only when they have run the price of living to incredible heights will it no longer be an issue. My fix to this is simple but not practical and it includes a bounty.

[Captain O]

 "My fix to this is simple but not practical and it includes a bounty." (Its the quicker picker-upper).

[terdog]

And what if the change is caused by us?
Would it not be prudent to act as if it is and take steps to prevent the demise of the planet.
We do "preventative maintenance" on all or stuff. Why not the world that supports us?
Whats the downside?

[Graybeard]

Terdog, in the realm of air and water pollution, I completely agree with you. On man made climate change, not so much. The world has been through more than one ice age and mankind has done nothing to cause or end any of them. People forget that the industrial revolution involved the use of a massive amount of coal without the slightest amount of concern for air pollution. Did the climate change? Nope. Do I support that level of pollution? Of course not.

I bought a new motorcycle in the spring of 1990. Hardly got to ride it as a volcano went off out west and most of the northern hemisphere barely got above 70 degrees all summer. I live in Michigan, several thousand miles away. The next summer things were right back to normal. The media was happy to quote all the scientists that stated more material was thrown into the air than man could ever do. Things like frozen mammoths in Siberia with fresh buttercups in their stomachs also tell us that major climate shifts have occurred in the past that had absolutely nothing to do with us.

Obama's new mansion on Martha's Vineyard, climate change touting celebs criss crossing the world on private jets, Al Gore's energy gobbling mansions, etc, all tell me even these people don't believe the story they're telling. We live in a time when those in power and the media use fear as a motivator for the masses. Fear of climate change doesn't seem to cause any fear for banks and insurance companies. 30yr mortgages and homeowners insurance are still available for ocean front properties. Actuarials are rarely wrong. Follow the money.

[Captain O]

And what if the change is caused by us?
Would it not be prudent to act as if it is and take steps to prevent the demise of the planet.
We do "preventative maintenance" on all or stuff. Why not the world that supports us?
Whats the downside?

What if the moon is made of green cheese? Could we eat it without fear of disrupting the tides?

Get real.

[Graybeard]

Of course there's this school of thought, as well.  https://ifunny.co/picture/VdtOC0d37

[Trapper6L]

terdog, when dealing with anything the Gov't is trying to control, follow the money. There's no global warming and there's no shortage of oil. Just to give you an idea of what oil is near our shores, remember the Deepwater Horizon that caught fire a few years ago and everybody was pissy about it. That was a research platform, not an oil rig. The purpose of the Deepwater Horizon was to find the limits of a known oil reservoir that's never been charted. The oil reserve runs along our Gulf Coast to Mexico, to Venezuela, to Brazil, to Cuba, to Florida. The known oil that comes out of this reserve is what is referred to as sweet, meaning it requires little processing to make it pure enough to run thru a refinery. Unlike the nasty goo we get from the Arabs. So far what we know about this reserve is that it will last the world, with no other new reserves found, at least 3,000 years. Now here's the kicker, we can either put rigs on it or watch it kill the Gulf of Mexico. It's under an estimated 8,000 lbs of pressure and is leaking into the Gulf everyday. In Texas, we are seeing oil wells that were pumped out, dry, are now producing again. No, we don't know how this happens but it's suspected that it has to do with the earths nickel core and the high heat.

So should we keep our engines running as efficiently as possible? Most folks would agree that we need to keep the air clean. Problem is though, the technology already exists......only you can't have it. There is an engine known as the Dr Paul engine that is a 100% clean engine, it's already been built, run, and tested. Try a single cylinder engine with 2 opposing pistons in the same bore. Picture 4 crankshafts to handle the tremendous power, 900HP to be exact. It's about the size of a briefcase. So how does it do this? If you know anything about thermal dynamics, the more we compress a fuel, the more efficient it is. This engine runs right at 1000:1 compression and with an after cooler, the exhaust emissions do not form and all that comes out of the exhaust is breathable air and water. Efficiency is over 80% vs a modern gas engine at 30%. So why can't you have it? Because you can make your own fuel at home from your biogarbage and the powers that be don't have a way to tax you on it. In Texas, we pay right at 38 cents a gallon in taxes on gasoline. Multiply that times how many millions of gallons pumped each day times 365 days. That's a lot of money the politicians won't have to screw you out of with their stupid programs. You can research the Dr Paul engine at youtube. There is a vid there on it. In the vid at the beginning is the engine in diagram so you can see how it works, then the actual engine running. So if you think there is a fuel shortage, think again. If you think the Gov't and politicians really give a crap about air quality, think again. It's all about the money. Everything else be damned.

[Captain O]

terdog, when dealing with anything the Gov't is trying to control, follow the money. There's no global warming and there's no shortage of oil. Just to give you an idea of what oil is near our shores, remember the Deepwater Horizon that caught fire a few years ago and everybody was pissy about it. That was a research platform, not an oil rig. The purpose of the Deepwater Horizon was to find the limits of a known oil reservoir that's never been charted. The oil reserve runs along our Gulf Coast to Mexico, to Venezuela, to Brazil, to Cuba, to Florida. The known oil that comes out of this reserve is what is referred to as sweet, meaning it requires little processing to make it pure enough to run thru a refinery. Unlike the nasty goo we get from the Arabs. So far what we know about this reserve is that it will last the world, with no other new reserves found, at least 3,000 years. Now here's the kicker, we can either put rigs on it or watch it kill the Gulf of Mexico. It's under an estimated 8,000 lbs of pressure and is leaking into the Gulf everyday. In Texas, we are seeing oil wells that were pumped out, dry, are now producing again. No, we don't know how this happens but it's suspected that it has to do with the earths nickel core and the high heat.

So should we keep our engines running as efficiently as possible? Most folks would agree that we need to keep the air clean. Problem is though, the technology already exists......only you can't have it. There is an engine known as the Dr Paul engine that is a 100% clean engine, it's already been built, run, and tested. Try a single cylinder engine with 2 opposing pistons in the same bore. Picture 4 crankshafts to handle the tremendous power, 900HP to be exact. It's about the size of a briefcase. So how does it do this? If you know anything about thermal dynamics, the more we compress a fuel, the more efficient it is. This engine runs right at 1000:1 compression and with an after cooler, the exhaust emissions do not form and all that comes out of the exhaust is breathable air and water. Efficiency is over 80% vs a modern gas engine at 30%. So why can't you have it? Because you can make your own fuel at home from your biogarbage and the powers that be don't have a way to tax you on it. In Texas, we pay right at 38 cents a gallon in taxes on gasoline. Multiply that times how many millions of gallons pumped each day times 365 days. That's a lot of money the politicians won't have to screw you out of with their stupid programs. You can research the Dr Paul engine at youtube. There is a vid there on it. In the vid at the beginning is the engine in diagram so you can see how it works, then the actual engine running. So if you think there is a fuel shortage, think again. If you think the Gov't and politicians really give a crap about air quality, think again. It's all about the money. Everything else be damned.

The defense... rests.

[Captain O]

Editorial from an Australian Newspaper                                                                                                                   
To all the school kids going on strike for climate change: You are the first generation which has required air conditioning in every classroom, you want TV in every room and your classes are all computerized. You spend all day and night on electronic devices. More than ever you don't walk or ride bikes to school, but you arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You're the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good, expensive luxury items just to stay trendy. Your entertainment comes from electric devices, furthermore the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport. The more people we have, the more forests and bush land we clear and the more of the environment that's destroyed.
How about this, tell your teachers to switch off the air conditioning, walk or ride your bike to school, switch off your devices and read a book, make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
Nope, none of this will happen, BECAUSE you're selfish, badly educated, virtue-signaling little turds inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a Noble Cause while they indulge themselves in western luxury and an unprecedented quality of life.
WAKE UP! GROW UP! AND SHUT UP!

[blaster]

^ that is great!

[Captain O]

The West Antarctic ice sheet, the biggest mass of ice in the world, has been growing since the end of the nineteenth century.

Marc Morano featured a post about a fascinating Chinese study from Dr. Patrick Michaels at the website of CFACT's friend and ally the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The forthcoming study by six Chinese authors is scheduled to appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.  The study concludes that Antarctic ice exhibited a "significant negative trend" during the nineteenth century, then a "significant positive trend" throughout the 20th.

This doesn't help the narrative for those seeking to spread climate alarm one bit.

Here's the latest example:  Artist Thomas Starr of Northeastern University has been placing fake historical markers in New England towns.  "Gazebo relocated due to recurring flooding caused by sea level rise, March, 2058," reads a plaque on a gazebo in Durham, New Hampshire. He calls it the Seacoast Remembrance Project.  Starr's plaques have been garnering the laudatory media write-ups we're sure you'd expect.

Hey Durham Town Council, want to sell us the land your lovely seaside gazebo's on at a generous discount?  We'll take the problem off your hands.  It is doomed after all.

That sea level has been slowly rising at only 1 to 3 mm per year since before the industrial revolution, with no sign of meaningful acceleration, does not make it into the articles.  Hysterical sea level claims are not based on reality.  Dangerously rising seas exist only in the virtual world of climate computer simulations.

Those ever-faulty computer models project extreme Antarctic ice melt.  That it has not actually occurred does not seem to matter.  They even stoop to attributing extra high tides caused by natural lunar cycles, combined with ground level subsidence, to sea level rise.

Pity the tide gauges don't show it.  Sorry Miami, your occasionally wet streets were not caused by electrical generation, air travel, bovine flatulence, or even SUVs.

Dr. Michaels speculates that the media will have no appetite for a study showing Antarctic ice gaining.  What do you think?

We'll do him one better.  If they do cover it, they'll try and spin it as justifying global warming alarm!

We factored the situation into our own computer models.  They project shamelessly disseminated climate propaganda.

Let's see whose projections pan out.

For nature and people too,