Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

polar-bear-pawBy: Alex Newman.

It is often said that non-scientists must rely on “expert opinion” to determine whether claims on alleged “catastrophic man-made global warming” are true. Putting aside the fact that there is no global-warming “consensus” among experts, one does not have to be a scientist, or even proficient in science, to be able to review past predictions, and then form an informed opinion regarding the accuracy of those predictions.

Suppose, for example, you regularly watch a local TV weatherman forecast the weather for your area. Would you need a degree in meteorology in order to decide for yourself how reliable, or unreliable, the weatherman’s forecasts are?

Warnings have been issued for many decades now regarding catastrophic climate change that forecasted certain trends or occurrences that we should already have witnessed. Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very wrong. This was certainly the case with the alarmist predictions of the 1960s and ’70s that man’s activities on Earth were causing a catastrophic cooling trend that would bring on another ice age. And it is also the case with the more recent claims about catastrophic global warming.

Read the article at: The New American

25 Responses to Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry

  1. Neilio November 10, 2014 at 2:31 pm #

    I realize this article is several months old already, but oh, does it ever say what I’ve been saying for a long time, and then some! I now know for a fact that there are two kinds of people who still believe in global warming. There are the agenda driven people, like RNH, and Feister, who believe it is a means to an end, (the end being the complete annihilation of Capitalism, and the rise of a socialist world order). And complete imbeciles.

    • Dan November 19, 2014 at 9:20 pm #

      Good post, regardless.

  2. Joeb November 12, 2014 at 3:45 am #

    Minnesota shatters snow record from 1898


    Don’t worry, everyone – Feister will be along in a minute to ‘prove’ it’s caused by something called (snigger) ‘man-made global warming’…still, you have to start somewhere to impose totalitarianism on the world, don’t you?

  3. joeb November 12, 2014 at 6:26 am #

    I’m loving the story of the US/China emissions deal.

    The deal is that the US commits to a specific reduction by a specific date, and China commits to…well, absolutely othing.

    Well done, Barry. Bent over a barrel again! The Chinese know how to play a fool into wrecking his economy even more than he already is…

    • Dan November 19, 2014 at 9:22 pm #

      Welcome to the beginning of world-wide economic redistribution. It may take them decades, but they’re patient. It’s already begun.

  4. Antoine November 12, 2014 at 8:39 am #

    There is an interesting poll and debate about climate change there:

    Maybe you would like to participate and give your opinions.

  5. Jacques November 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm #

    I’m new to this site and just wanted to share my logic on the current news of China and the U.S. “doubling its efforts” to reduce emissions. Does not have to do with this article.

    This is how I’ve always understood the motivations behind the global warming scandal and, until now, I have never been so sure of the logic since Chinese capitalist (err I mean Communist) leaders has been swayed by the U.S. to officially partake in the scam. The U.S. has been slowly pushing climate change for the sole beneficiary of corporatist monopolists. The U.S. produces more natural gas than any other country in the world (yes, even more than any Arab countries). Using mere supply and demand logic, cutting emissions means less fuel in supply which creates more demand and ultimately higher prices. Big oil monopolies love this because they get a higher price for their fuel. Less fuel for utility companies will lead to higher utility rates such as electricity. Current climate change policies lead to skyrocketing utility rates for consumers like you and me.

    Here’s how they convinced the Chinese. Believe it or not, the Chinese are just beginning to form monopolies on the same scale as U.S. monopolists. If the Chinese impose emission regulations it will be nearly impossible for new businesses/factories to open their doors and compete with existing giants. Less factories means higher profits for the ones already in existence. This also leads to higher prices for the goods it exports to countries such as the United States. It’s as simple as that.

    One hurdle to overcome in this logic is “why does the U.S. want to charge its citizens more for electricity and for common goods from China?” The simplest answer is inflation. The U.S., and China’s economy, is based on a grand pyramid scheme based on fiat currency or money backed by faith. In order for them to keep manipulating the economy, they need to print hoards of money. They justify doing this by the costs of living and goods rising, also called inflation. So there it is. The global warming scam summed up.

    • Neilio November 12, 2014 at 8:25 pm #

      Do you have any evidence of this? I think there are some flaws in your theory. I don’t have time right this minute to go through them but I will try to do it in the next couple of days.

    • Neilio November 13, 2014 at 5:22 am #

      Ok. The first thing that pops out for me is you use the term “monopolists”. What monopoly are you talking about? Are you saying the oil and gas industry is a monopoly? Because it’s not. There are a lot of different companies in the oil and gas industry that are competing with each other, which would be the counter definition to a monopoly.
      As far as the US producing more natural gas than anyone else, this is true. But, that has happened only within the last decade and it is despite US policy not because of it, because this feat was achieved with fracking by private companies on private lands. And as we all know the AGW scam has been going on long before that happened.

      So your theory has some holes you could drive a truck through.

    • Steve Bainbridge November 13, 2014 at 8:43 am #

      Sorry, your Econ 101 assumes that there are a few monopolists who can get together to plan a massive fraud. Go back and study the theory of long term behavior of oligopolies. Even OPEC can’t hold together. Too much incentive to cheat.

      I do believe that there is a general liberal bias to want to control others with things like the global warming invention.

  6. Sherry November 13, 2014 at 9:27 am #

    So what would be the problem with not treating the earth as if it were going to be here for our use and abuse forever? Asthma is caused or at least aggravated by air pollution caused by what is spuming out of coal-fired furnace chimneys, for merely one example. Capitalism has gotten out of control but a nice balance between capital and labor, with the little guys and gals being able to invent, be entrepreneurs, etc. without fear of being run over by Big Corp. would be a wonderful way for capitalism to exist.

    • Neilio November 15, 2014 at 5:10 am #

      I have heard this argument before. It is a false premise. By including CO2 as pollution it is very easy to argue this point because no one is for pollution. The stuff that is spuming(?), (I think you meant spewing, there isn’t a lot of froth or foamy stuff coming from smokestacks.). The stuff that comes out of smokestacks is pollution, sure, like arsenic, nasty stuff, no one wants that. But there is a lot less of it today than in the past. There have been great strides made to clean that stuff up, and it gets better as technology advances. But my point is that CO2 is not pollution. It should never have been classified as pollution. The only reason it has been classified as pollution is because it was believed to be the cause of warming. Not because of toxicity, or it being poison, or for being dangerous to life, because it’s none of those things. And, as it turns out, it has not caused warming either despite it being over 400 ppm today, there has been no warming for more than 18 years. The EPA’s classification of CO2 as a pollutant was a political move, not a scientific one.

      Oh, and the biggest hurdle to inventing things is the patent process. That is the government, not big business. It costs around $8,000 to file for a patent.
      And why do you think it is so expensive to start a business? It’s not because of big business. You give that a try. It’s not big business that regulates and taxes the hell out of you.
      Stop reading Marxist propaganda!

      • Eugene November 15, 2014 at 8:59 am #

        Sure CO2 is not a pollution like arsenic and is actually a wonderful and important molecule, like water. But just like too much water in a certain place (e.g. in a flooded house or in someone’s lungs) is quite bad, so the same with too much CO2 in a certain place (the atmosphere) is also not good for us. CO2 contributing to warmth is part of the “greenhouse effect” and is just basic physics from the 19th century. The extent of this in light of our industrial age CO2 emissions is obviously hotly debated but consider that respected organisations like NASA and the various National Academies of Science all agree it’s a big problem. The exact predictions are of course uncertain, and some environmentalists certainly greatly exaggerate things, but even if there’s only a 50% chance that natural disasters like floods & cyclones will become significantly worse, it’s still very wise for us to make changes. For the18 years without warming criticism please take a look at the Skeptical Science website.

        What I don’t get is how reforming our energy supplies will lead to socialism..?? The companies that produce solar panels, concentrated solar thermal, wind turbines, etc are all private capitalist corporations. What we see is the current market-leading fossil fuel corporations not wanting to lose market share to these newcomers. They also want to extract maximum profit from their fossil fuel stockpile before the world moves on and it becomes worthless. Also renewable energy sources are generally safer than fossil fuels (no fumes, no risk of spills, less mining to approve) so won’t they actually require less government regulation?

        • Neilio November 15, 2014 at 7:54 pm #

          Yes, CO2 can asphyxiate you if it displaces too much oxygen. DUH! And I would be right there with you if CO2 has caused any warming for the last 18 years, which it has not. That fact, right there, kind of shoots that theory full of holes. Does it not? We have and atmospheric content of CO2 that is above 400 ppm. If the theory were true, why isn’t all that CO2 warming the atmosphere as we speak? Global average temperatures should be rising with CO2! Why isn’t it?

          It is funny that you are adhering to the meme. Did you read the story in the post above? Practically all of the predictions made in the last 30 years have been wrong. The computer models are wrong. The predictions of warming, polar ice melt, the end of snow, all 100% wrong! But here you are spewing the same crap. You’re as wrong as they are.

          • Eugene November 16, 2014 at 12:36 am #

            Just have a careful look at the Skeptical Science website – they make the point that the planet actually has been warming over the past 18 years with much of the heat going into various layers of the ocean.

            Plus, the polar ice melt predictions are not 100% wrong:

          • Neilio November 16, 2014 at 8:00 am #

            Do you even know anything about the theory of AGW? Here’s a little refresher. The theory is that sunlight is absorbed by the ground and the ground emits IR radiation back into the atmosphere where it is captured by CO2 and warms the air around it. More CO2 captures more IR radiation and makes more warming. That is the theory. Do you see anything in there about the ocean? Does the ocean fly through the atmosphere and pick up heat from the atmosphere? Of course not. So what is the mechanism by which the ocean picks up this heat? You tell me that Eugene, and maybe I won’t think it’s complete horse sh*t. But for now?…….

            Oh, and we have polar ice right now, right? The predictions said it was all going to melt and raise sea levels, yada, yada, yada. So yes, those predictions were wrong.
            And I don’t care what NASA, or another blog says, or the NAS, or the IPCC. They are liars, and they are lying to you.

            The Oceans can absorb heat from the atmosphere, but the atmosphere needs to be heated first before that can occur. CO2 has to heat the air first before it can be absorbed by the oceans. This is the problem I’ve had with this theory from the first time I’d heard it. It is absurd, and it was only put forth as a possible explanation for the lack of warming in the last 18 years. And there was a recent study from NASA that says that there is no detectable warming in the oceans. http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/10/more-bad-news-for-the-global-warming-alarmists/
            So you need to accept that there is no warming, and that the IPCC, and pretty much everyone else who says there is a possible danger of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is full of crap and has a political agenda for saying so.

          • Eugene November 18, 2014 at 8:57 am #

            Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn’t look at this web-page for a few days. The website doesn’t seem to let me reply to your November 16 post so I’m trying it here.

            Yes, the theory is that CO2 warms the air, and like you yourself suggest, the air warms the ocean. Depending on extremely complex processes that I don’t even partially understand, the amount of heat that can go from the air to the oceans can vary depending on ocean currents, winds, etc. So it’s possible that during the last 18 years all the extra heat from global warming went into the oceans.

            Look, the peope at NASA are not idiots. If there was a conspiracy (why would there be??) I’m sure someone there would leak it. Even the much more secure NSA couldn’t contain Snowden.

            I agree that the CAGW stuff is mostly crap, depending on how you define “catastrophic” of course. Arguably for millions of poor people in places like Bangladesh who stand to be flooded out of their homes it will be rather “catastrophic” indeed.

          • Neilio November 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm #

            You are not seeing what I’m saying. The air would have to warm first, before the oceans could absorb it. This would be measurable. Heat absorbed by CO2 would warm the air, not the ocean. What part of that do you not understand?
            “Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).
            What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.
            This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the “missing heat” supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured “global warming” for the last 18 years.”

          • Eugene November 18, 2014 at 9:17 pm #

            I hear you, but our planet’s climate is not as simple as “heat absorbed by CO2 would warm the air, not the ocean”. There are short-term and long-term processes moving heat between the air and the oceans.

            So if you’re linking to research from NASA, do you believe NASA then? I followed your link to breitbart.com which has a link to NASA’s press release:


            It says “warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up”, “these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself”, etc…

            Also, I still don’t get the broader political problem with moving away from fossil fuels. Many conservatives support it – less reliance on governments and corporations, less reliance on foreign oil, self-sufficiency, etc..

          • Neilio November 26, 2014 at 7:13 pm #

            Look, the air is not warming which is what the AGW theory said was supposed to happen. Forget what the oceans are doing, there is no way the oceans are going to absorb heat from the air faster than the air can heat up. That is physically impossible. Even if the oceans are heating up you have to realize that the ocean has what is known as a memory, just like glaciers, and they react to things on timescales ranging from years, to decades, to centuries.
            The air is not warming up, that is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point. The CO2 content of the atmosphere is over 400 ppm, and the air is not warming up. But now? Wait a minute! The heat is in the ocean now? This is just global warming science backpedaling trying to explain why everything they thought would happen didn’t happen, and sycophants like you are right there, supporting whatever they say, and agreeing with it. Think! Think for yourself. Is rising heat in the ocean why there is no air warming? No, of course not. There is no warming in the atmosphere because AGW theory was wrong. Period, with a capital period.

  7. Kahawa November 26, 2014 at 6:26 pm #

    I enjoyed the content of the article and the ensuing conversation, except for the rude and insulting attitude of one of the contributors. I find this individual’s inconsiderate verbiage to be gratuitous, objectionable and counterproductive.

    The topic of misguided predictions also reminds me of conflicted scientific opinions. Here’s a case in point. When I was in the seventh grade, 1968-1969, we had a teacher in public school who was so alarmed about there not being enough arable land to feed the planet, she thought wild horses running wild out west, ruining arable land, to be an imminent crisis. She also felt anyone refusing to be cremated was unenlightened and irresponsible. Claims of there not being enough arable land are still made.

    At the same time. Scientist suggest than we can grow a significant amount of green fuel. I understand that part of the argument is that green fuel might be grown in some places that edible food would be difficult to grow; however, I still find the claims of both theories to be by in large incompatible.

    • Neilio November 28, 2014 at 5:59 am #

      “I enjoyed the content of the article and the ensuing conversation, except for the rude and insulting attitude of one of the contributors.”

      To which contributor do you refer?

  8. Sugarsail1 July 23, 2015 at 8:27 pm #

    the High Priests will interpret the Bible for you, you illiterate masses.

    • Nunya Beezwax December 3, 2015 at 11:00 pm #

      Kinda the same way Mayans used weather predictions to control the masses.

    • GFRF April 22, 2016 at 8:18 pm #

      Ppl are sheep when they never question the experts!
      Prison for anyone who denies GW!!

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.