Nature is ignoring climate alarmists’ predictions

[Peter1469]

Nature is ignoring climate alarmists’ predictions

Here is a good editorial from the Las Vegas Review that shows why the National Park Service had to remove signs from Glacier National Park that claimed the glaciers would be gone by 2020. Probably because the glaciers are still there, and expanding.

Environmental alarmists have a problem. Nature keeps ignoring their predictions.
The latest example comes from the National Park Service. For years, signs at Glacier National Park have informed visitors that the glaciers have a specific expiration date.


“The small alpine glaciers present today … are now rapidly shrinking due to human-caused climate change,” a sign read in 2018. “Computer models indicate the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020.”


But they aren’t gone — far from it. There’s even evidence some glaciers have grown over the past decade.


So officials at Glacier National Park hold a press conference to celebrate the good news? Not hardly. Instead, they stealthily reworded their dire predictions.


“The small alpine glaciers present today … are rapidly shrinking due to human-accelerated climate change,” that same sign now reads. “When they will completely disappear, however, depends on how and when we act.”


This is, at least, a cagier claim. It asserts that humans are causing the glaciers to disappear, but it’s harder to falsify without an end date.






It’s similar to why alarmists switched their messaging from global warming to climate change. It’s not always getting warmer, but the climate is always changing. This gives them limitless opportunities to push their preferred solutions, which are various ways to cripple capitalism and the U.S. economy.


“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” progressive superstar Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed early this year.

Read the rest of the article at the link.

[mamooth]

The predictions of AGW theory have all been spot-on correct. That's why the science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for 40+ years running.

Contrast that to the global warming deniers, who have been doing a faceplant on everything for those same 40+ years. When the real scientists were predicting warming back in the 1970s, the deniers were predicting a new ice age and hyping it to the media. They've never stopped predicting that ice age RealSoonNow. Deniers are kind of like ice age cultists. Their holy ice age never arrives, but after each failure of their icy armageddon to materialize, they just push back the date.

So, that's why deniers have zero credibility, their perfect record of failure.

As far as Glacier Park goes, the fact that one government employee, who is not a scientist, printed some bad signs is irrelevant to the science, which never predicted a loss of all glaciers there by 2020.

[Peter1469]

The predictions of AGW theory have all been spot-on correct. That's why the science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for 40+ years running.

Contrast that to the global warming deniers, who have been doing a faceplant on everything for those same 40+ years. When the real scientists were predicting warming back in the 1970s, the deniers were predicting a new ice age and hyping it to the media. They've never stopped predicting that ice age RealSoonNow. Deniers are kind of like ice age cultists. Their holy ice age never arrives, but after each failure of their icy armageddon to materialize, they just push back the date.

So, that's why deniers have zero credibility, their perfect record of failure.

As far as Glacier Park goes, the fact that one government employee, who is not a scientist, printed some bad signs is irrelevant to the science, which never predicted a loss of all glaciers there by 2020.

You are a nut.

The climate alarmists are funny. You have no actual political power- evidence by how votes go.

Should you achieve political power, you would become a legitimate assassination target. Because your ideas are stupid and harmful to humans.

You tell voters that humans are killing the planet = you being Mondaled. Mondale got only 13 electoral votes.

[Standing Wolf]

This gives them limitless opportunities to push their preferred solutions, which are various ways to cripple capitalism and the U.S. economy.

And there we have it - the bottom line impetus and motivation for climate change deniers: it's un-American because it suggests that we should be less dependent on fossil fuels, which in the long run may hurt Big Oil. In some respects, it's similar to the way the Creationists characterize scientific arguments for human evolution as "Satanic attacks on Christianity and the Bible". Yeah, okay, Science is cool, but let's get our facts and agenda from the oil company lobbyists and fundamentalist preachers.

The absolute worst thing for the possibility of nations taking appropriate actions to prepare for rising temperatures and sea levels over the course of the next few decades is the politicization of the subject - and I assign some amount of blame to both "sides" for that. Mostly, however, it's the fault of those who attribute an anti-capitalist bias to the established science behind climate change theories. Runners up would be those on the other "side" who have made a virtual religion out of urging people to switch to those stupid, annoying curly-cue light bulbs, eat vegan to reduce the size of cattle herds and ride the bus to work.

It isn't a conservative/liberal thing at all, or shouldn't be, but unfortunately (tragically might not be an overstated way to put it) that's the way both "sides" appear to be portraying it at any given moment. If a huge asteroid were seen to be hurtling toward the planet, would we be dividing up into a group that dismisses the danger as a liberal plot and a group that proposes that we can avoid the problem by chanting, eating kale and urging that men pee sitting down?

And Peter, I'm honestly very surprised at the tone you took with mamooth. "Nut"? "Legitimate assassination target"? That doesn't sound like you at all. That's frankly the kind of language I would expect from MV or Gleed.

[Captdon]

The predictions of AGW theory have all been spot-on correct. That's why the science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for 40+ years running.

Contrast that to the global warming deniers, who have been doing a faceplant on everything for those same 40+ years. When the real scientists were predicting warming back in the 1970s, the deniers were predicting a new ice age and hyping it to the media. They've never stopped predicting that ice age RealSoonNow. Deniers are kind of like ice age cultists. Their holy ice age never arrives, but after each failure of their icy armageddon to materialize, they just push back the date.

So, that's why deniers have zero credibility, their perfect record of failure.

As far as Glacier Park goes, the fact that one government employee, who is not a scientist, printed some bad signs is irrelevant to the science, which never predicted a loss of all glaciers there by 2020.

40+ years ago, the climatologists were predicting an ice age. Check your facts elsewhere than the DNC.

[Standing Wolf]

40+ years ago, the climatologists were predicting an ice age. Check your facts elsewhere than the DNC.

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.



https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

[Peter1469]

[I]

And there we have it - the bottom line impetus and motivation for climate change deniers: it's un-American because it suggests that we should be less dependent on fossil fuels, which in the long run may hurt Big Oil. In some respects, it's similar to the way the Creationists characterize scientific arguments for human evolution as "Satanic attacks on Christianity and the Bible". Yeah, okay, Science is cool, but let's get our facts and agenda from the oil company lobbyists and fundamentalist preachers.

The absolute worst thing for the possibility of nations taking appropriate actions to prepare for rising temperatures and sea levels over the course of the next few decades is the politicization of the subject - and I assign some amount of blame to both "sides" for that. Mostly, however, it's the fault of those who attribute an anti-capitalist bias to the established science behind climate change theories. Runners up would be those on the other "side" who have made a virtual religion out of urging people to switch to those stupid, annoying curly-cue light bulbs, eat vegan to reduce the size of cattle herds and ride the bus to work.

It isn't a conservative/liberal thing at all, or shouldn't be, but unfortunately (tragically might not be an overstated way to put it) that's the way both "sides" appear to be portraying it at any given moment. If a huge asteroid were seen to be hurtling toward the planet, would we be dividing up into a group that dismisses the danger as a liberal plot and a group that proposes that we can avoid the problem by chanting, eating kale and urging that men pee sitting down?

And Peter, I'm honestly very surprised at the tone you took with mamooth. "Nut"? "Legitimate assassination target"? That doesn't sound like you at all. That's frankly the kind of language I would expect from MV or Gleed.

Relax. The US is moving towards environmental best practices despite what the alarmists claim. In the meantime we can mock the alarmists.

[MisterVeritis]

And Peter, I'm honestly very surprised at the tone you took with mamooth. "Nut"? "Legitimate assassination target"? That doesn't sound like you at all. That's frankly the kind of language I would expect from MV or Gleed.

I cannot recall claiming anyone would be a legitimate assassination target. I do insist the coup plotters have their entire legal process followed right up to execution by the state. Once the Second American Civil War begins there will be many war killings on both sides. I expect the Second Civil War to begin once the next Democrat president is elected. So we have at least six more good years.

[Peter1469]

I cannot recall claiming anyone would be a legitimate assassination target. I do insist the coup plotters have their entire legal process followed right up to execution by the state. Once the Second American Civil War begins there will be many war killings on both sides. I expect the Second Civil War to begin once the next Democrat president is elected. So we have at least six more good years.

I am for assassinations. We know who are acting against US interests. We can solve that.

[MisterVeritis]

I am for assassinations. We know who are acting against US interests. We can solve that.

I know.

I have not made the case for extralegal killings. If the law offers no justice there will be plenty of time to mete out appropriate punishments.

Once the civil war begins I fully expect mayors, city counsels, sheriffs, the senior-most available bureaucrats will all be slain by patriots fighting to retain the right to self government and the USA.

I know which side I will be on.