I always remember when I was a kid(like 6-8 years old) watching some show about the Earth freezing over and that always stuck with me to this day(this would be the very late 70s, early 80s). I wonder if it was that in Search Of(the Coming Ice Age) show
It's important that we remember the past predictions. Otherwise doomsayers just make up new "doom" and serve it up while people with short memories just lap it up again.
Now that we have the internet, it's tougher for doomsayers. Information is right there for us to look at. Now the tactic has to change for the doom industry....they've got to either pretend they didn't say certain things in the past ("We won't know what snow is by 2011!") or try to paint what they said as "We weren't really wrong" ("Snow proves AGW right too!"). Kinda like how there is an effort to pretend there was no Global Cooling scare in the 70s or the IPCC redrawing the error bars on the predictions of models so the lack of warming for the last 17 years will barely be included at the low end.
In 2007, Australian Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems". But it did.
In 2001, the IPCC predicted "milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms".
Nice...now that "the petroleum guys" are onboard (they see the money too)...they are welcomed into the fold. I thought they were only motivated by money before?
t:
More appeal to authority. "Everyone qualified to judge". We are just supposed to change the lifestyle of the human race...lower our standard of living...because of a small group of "experts". This guy has it backward. When you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proof...and AGW theory doesn't have that. The burden of proof is on AGW believers if you want the entire human race to lower the standard of living we have spent centuries achieving.
More exaggeration. "Making the whole planet uninhabitable". He does admit "everyone who is qualified to judge says it is.....or it
might be happening". That points out the obvious fact that we can't even tell this "catastrophic global warming" is happening at all. And we are well over 150 years into the warming period now. The only way we can detect it is by listening to "everyone who is qualified to judge"? The really damning thing is that we have experienced the greatest period of prosperity in human history during this 150+ year warming period. Yeah...warming is terrible, isn't it? As usual, it's "well...just wait...it's coming...any time now".
"10 years" seems to be the theme from the beginning. That's when it will be "too late".
It seems like a safe date in the future so your prediction doesn't have to come true immediately but also close enough to be scary.
“The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis” -Al Gore 2008
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said , director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the [problem].-Noel Brown 1989
"With just 10 more years of 'business as usual' emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas it becomes impractical to avoid "disastrous effects."-James Hansen 2007
More appeal to consensus. He doesn't point out that when you ask certain questions, you can get this almighty consensus. "Do you think the planet has warmed over the 20th century and that mankind made a measurable contribution to that warming?" That question will get a very high agreement. But that's not the case being made, is it? Let's ask the REAL question..."Do you think the warming is catastrophic, the planet will become uninhabitable, and that mankind is responsible for most of the warming?" When you ask
that one, the agreement plummets and the "consensus" disappears. Do these guys sound like they think the world is doomed and it's our fault?
http://translate.googleusercontent....ighet/&usg=ALkJrhgg2yHQ_CB4qGQTUjpzVE0vMVkdgg. How about these guys?
http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/German-scientists-reject-manmade-global-warming#.UlV3aNJwqij. Does this guy sound like he is saying the world is ending?
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/ How about this guy?
http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html That's not even going into how that "consensus" has been manipulated recently by Cook et al.
More precautionary principle. "We should act just in case!" Never even considered is the possibility of AGW policies reducing prosperity and causing millions of deaths worldwide in years to come. (Poverty kills more than anything else) So the precautionary principle works
both ways here. Where is the "We should be sure before we risk killing millions of people"?
Lastly is this. The tactics he is using here have been in use since 1988. How is that working so far? Have CO2 emissions ("pollution"
) decreased or have they skyrocketed faster than ever?
Some environmentalists aren't happy that real problems are being ignored while the most popular doom takes so many resources:
[YT]JZBP-JYzQKg[/YT]
