Skip to main content

Intelligence analysts have agreed since the late 80s that climate change poses serious security risks.

"... the national intelligence community – including the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other federal agencies – in January 2019 submitted the annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” In it, the intelligence agencies stated that “climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water. These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.”

That report from National Intelligence Director Daniel R. Coats, a former U.S. Republican senator from Indiana, was just the most recent in a long string of analyses that any upcoming challenges to such conclusions will have to address. Those conclusions clearly are at odds with the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine and reverse federal climate policies, and they cast doubt on the President’s next day tweet that “Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!”

https://www.yaleclimateconnect...ange-security-risks/

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jack Hammer posted:
How has the bogus climate claims of 30 years ago hurt today's 
realization of current conditions.? 
Now that we have more believable information.

I don't understand what you are trying convey or ask.   Are you saying you don't believe the climate science of 30 years ago but believe the climate science of today?  Or, are you trying to say that you only believe climate science that fits your world-view paradigm? 

What "bogus climate claims of 30 years ago" are you talking about?  What "realization of current conditions" are you talking about?  What "more believable information" are you talking about?

OldSalt posted:
Jack Hammer posted:
How has the bogus climate claims of 30 years ago hurt today's 
realization of current conditions.? 
Now that we have more believable information.

I don't understand what you are trying convey or ask.   Are you saying you don't believe the climate science of 30 years ago but believe the climate science of today?  Or, are you trying to say that you only believe climate science that fits your world-view paradigm? 

What "bogus climate claims of 30 years ago" are you talking about?  What "realization of current conditions" are you talking about?  What "more believable information" are you talking about?

Forget it, wasn't my intention to soil your panties 

Jack Hammer posted:
OldSalt posted:
Jack Hammer posted:
How has the bogus climate claims of 30 years ago hurt today's 
realization of current conditions.? 
Now that we have more believable information.

I don't understand what you are trying convey or ask.   Are you saying you don't believe the climate science of 30 years ago but believe the climate science of today?  Or, are you trying to say that you only believe climate science that fits your world-view paradigm? 

What "bogus climate claims of 30 years ago" are you talking about?  What "realization of current conditions" are you talking about?  What "more believable information" are you talking about?

Forget it, wasn't my intention to soil your panties 

Wow.  I was just asking for clarification to your ambiguous post.  I'm ready to reasonably discuss this topic, but I need to know what you're talking about. 

You seem to be on more edge than usual, you know the weather
scientists falsified documentation about global warming, they admitted
it later on, so naturally people have a harder time believing a true fact
these days.
 
But really, never mind, you had rather someone knock that 'D' cell
off your shoulder than discuss the weather. I get it, I hit a nerve.
Jack Hammer posted:
You seem to be on more edge than usual, you know the weather
scientists falsified documentation about global warming, they admitted
it later on, so naturally people have a harder time believing a true fact
these days.
 
But really, never mind, you had rather someone knock that 'D' cell
off your shoulder than discuss the weather. I get it, I hit a nerve.

I see you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.  That is not surprising, considering its you.

The ‘global warming’ HOAX is 30 years old: Here are some of the DUMBEST doom-and-gloom predictions

 

(National Sentinel) Once upon a time in the late 1980s, the Left devised a behavioral modification scheme aimed at one thing: Future control of as much of the population as possible.
The problem was convincing enough Americans to willingly go along with the plan — a scheme most would never voluntarily agree to because it would involve radical deindustrialization and modification of their lifestyles. 

They settled on human-caused “global warming” — the determination that modern existence was causing the planet to heat up so much all life would soon be exterminated…if we didn’t stop being so modern.

The crackpot theory was first introduced by NASA ‘scientist’ Dr. James Hansen in testimony before the U.S. Senate in 1988: “Global warming has begun.”

As reported June 24 of that year by The New York Times: 

The earth has been warmer in the first five months of this year than in any comparable period since measurements began 130 years ago, and the higher temperatures can now be attributed to a long-expected global warming trend linked to pollution, a space agency scientist reported today.

At the time, Hansen — said to be a “leading expert on climate change” — told a Senate committee that he was “99 percent certain” that the warming trend of the day wasn’t due to natural Earth variations but instead was being “caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere,” the Times reported.

The Times intoned with this dire warning: “If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.”

Since then, of course, there has been no shortage of wild predictions of mass gloom, doom, and death, thanks to selfish humans (Americans mostly) who care more about their SUV than heating up the planet to the point of extinction.

And while the Left continues to tout this theory as legitimate, none of their predictions have come true. In fact, Hansen’s own charts and computer models from 1988 and earlier have been shown to be ridiculously flawed.

Here are some of the most bizarre, insane, and just plain wrong predictions of disaster:

— One of our day’s biggest climate hoaxers, former Vice President Al Gore, predicted in 2006 as he was hyping in his BS (but nevertheless Oscar-winning) documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce “greenhouse gases,” then the world would reach a “point of no return” within a decade.

That prediction is now 12 years old. Mind you, Gore has never been a climate scientist or even a scientist at all; he’s just a political huckster like any other Democrat who claims to have intimate knowledge about the Earth. 

— In March 2000, a writer for the UK’s Independent wrote that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” as Britain was undergoing “striking environmental change” (thanks to selfish humans). But then a strange thing happened; England kept seeing snowfall. In fact, in March of this year rural UK received so much snow, one longtime resident of rural England remarked: “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

— In 2007, Australia’s The Age pondered, “Can climate change get worse? It has,” onto its way to predict “more catastrophic damages from climate change than in the worst-case scenario forecast by international experts.” That, ostensibly, included losing most of the Australian continent to flooding as melting ice dramatically increased the sea level.

 

There are many more, and Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.com put together a video of 30 years’ worth of bogus global warming/climate change predictions that never came true (and never will). 

A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeed and is instead promoting Pravda media sources. When you share our stories with your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment to consider sharing this article with your friends and family (see buttons below) and liking our page.

https://thenationalsentinel.co...d-gloom-predictions/

OldSalt posted:
Stanky posted:

The CIA has always been concerned about the weather. Back in the 70s, they were concerned about the effects of global cooling on the USSR's agriculture:

https://www.cia.gov/library/re...s/DOC_0000499885.pdf

I find this paragraph from the summary to be of particular interest:

 

Don't forget this:

The climate might just be naturally variable. That's not to say that man can't alter things a little with deforestation, altering river flows, and paving just about every level acre of land available.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0

I also meant to say, but was battling trying to post from my iPhone, indeed climate varies naturally due to solar cycles, the nature of the earth’s orbit and axial tilt and other factors. But taking only those into consideration the earth should be in a cooling trend. But it’s not.  The current warming trend parallels the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I’ve always questioned what comes first - higher temperature resulting in more plant material decay leading to more atmospheric CO2 or more CO2 resulting in higher temperature. 

OldSalt posted:

So, the northern hemisphere had been cooling since 1940 (para 8), but since (it’s not precise on this) the early 70’s and through 1975 had been warming (para 6.)

What is the trend since 1975?  According to most climatologist the trend is the climate is warming  

http://nas-sites.org/americasc...06/19014_cvtx_R1.pdf

 

True, measured world temperatures are going up, but that could also have been said about a millennium ago. That could also have been said at various other points in this interglacial period.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fydnZoEJnkM/T1SGhl56OxI/AAAAAAAAAZU/7_Qrktu6z5c/s1600/Stonehenge%2BClimatic%2BOptimum.jpg

http://www.sarsen.org/2012/03/...limatic-optimum.html

 

OldSalt posted:

I also meant to say, but was battling trying to post from my iPhone, indeed climate varies naturally due to solar cycles, the nature of the earth’s orbit and axial tilt and other factors. But taking only those into consideration the earth should be in a cooling trend. But it’s not.  The current warming trend parallels the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I’ve always questioned what comes first - higher temperature resulting in more plant material decay leading to more atmospheric CO2 or more CO2 resulting in higher temperature. 

Ice cores show that CO lags temperatures, so warmists propose that gas molecules have little boring machines so that they move upwards. As to the Holocene, depending on who one listens to, we could be near the end or we could have another 10K years.

The left wing Think Progress reports that about 3 million years ago the CO2 level equalled what we had today.  Pray tell, how did that happed?  Why wasn't all life made extinct?  Humans didn't exist.  Was it dinosaur farts that raised the levels so high.  Was there another species that reached the level of our civilization?  Only to have successive glaciers from five ice ages grind any sign of them to dust?  Pardon if I remain a skeptic.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were as high as they are today, sea levels were 60 feet higher and it was so warm that trees grew in Antarctica.

Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Their in-depth analysis of plant fossils and sediments reveal that such CO2 levels were last seen in the late Pliocene Epoch, a time when there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone. Temperatures were up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer globally, at least double that at the poles, and sea levels were some 20 meters (65 feet) higher."

https://thinkprogress.org/carb...p;utm_source=twitter

 

But similar past predictions – even by the most prestigious experts – have failed to pan out. Here are 9 of the biggest doomsday prediction failures:

1.– GLOBAL WARMING TO WIPE NATIONS "OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH" IF CLIMATE CHANGE NOT ADDRESSED BY YEAR 2000

In 1989, the Associated Press relayed a warning from a U.N. official:

"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."

The official was Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, who added: "Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands.”

Instead, U.S. and global farm production rose, and more than 1 billion people worldwide rose out of extreme poverty due to economic growth.

No nations were “wiped off the face of the Earth” as of 2019.

However, those worried about warming caution that the U.N. official’s prediction was nuanced.

“He is not saying that entire nations are going to be wiped off the face of the earth by the year 2000,” Joe Romm, a senior fellow at American Progress, told Fox News.

“He is saying that if we don’t dramatically reverse emissions by the year 2000 — then we are not going to be able to avoid future flooding,” Romm said.

“It now seems inevitable that a number of island nations will be wiped off the face of the earth because we didn’t act in time,” he added.

According to NASA, global sea levels rose 3.5 inches in the 25 years since 1993, when it began reporting satellite data on sea levels. 

The world’s lowest-lying country is the Maldives, a collection of Pacific islands with a population of just over 400,000, where the highest point in the country is 7.9 feet above sea level, with much of it below 3 feet.

2.– MASS STARVATION BY 1975

In 1967, a best-selling book came out called “Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive?

It predicted mass starvation around the developing world due to increasing population. “Today’s crisis can move in only one direction – toward catastrophe,” it warned.

Some experts praised the book and ridiculed doubters.

“All serious students of the plight of the underdeveloped nations agree that famine... is inevitable,” Cal Tech biology professor Peter Bonner wrote in a 1967 review of the book in the prestigious journal Science.

The exact opposite of the book’s prediction happened. Famine deaths plunged dramatically as farming technology improved, communist countries began allowing private property again, and the globe became further connected.

According to a dataset put together by Our World in Data, more people died of famine in the single decade prior to the book’s release than in all 52 years since it was published.

Yet the book got widespread praise from experts. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich, now President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, said in 1968 that the book “may be remembered as one of the most important books of our age.”

3.– GLOBAL FREEZING AS DANGEROUS AS NUCLEAR WAR

Global cooling was once a worry to many, such as University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, who warned that present trends would make the world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 ... about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

British science writer Nigel Calder was just as worried. "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” Calder warned in International Wildlife magazine in 1975.

That quote was dug up by George Mason University economist Walter E. Williams, who argues that there are so many apocalyptic predictions because “they have an agenda for more government control ... fear about the environment is a way to gain government control,” Williams told Fox News.

“Communism and socialism have lost respectability, so it’s been repackaged as environmentalism,” he added.

“It’s like watermelons — green on the outside, red on the inside.”

4.– MASSIVE WARMING BY THE YEAR 2000

The same U.N. official who predicted the loss of entire nations by the year 2000 also claimed: "the most conservative scientific estimate [is] that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.”

But looking back from 2019, the temperature rose about half of a degree Celsius since 1989, according to NASA.

Romm says that, regardless of what that U.N. official may have said, the projections issued in the U.N.’s official reports have been good.

“All of the major scientific assessments of global warming have become more dire over time because greenhouse gas emissions have until very recently kept rising at a worst-case scenario rate,” Romm said.

Many who worry about global warming acknowledge that some past predictions have been overblown, but say they hope that doesn’t distract people from the reality that the earth is warming due to man – if more slowly and less catastrophically than some have predicted.

“There have been predictions that have turned out not to come true,” John P. Abraham, a Professor at the University of St. Thomas who has published papers on climate change, told Fox News. “But ... the majority of climate science was proven right.”

5.– AL GORE SAYS 10 YEARS ARE LEFT IN 2006

In 2006, while promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said that humanity had only 10 years left before the world would reach a point of no return.

Gore’s movie also featured animations of water inundating Manhattan and Florida

Yet Gore’s critics point out that just a few years later, he bought an $8 million beach-front property near Los Angeles. 

“I wish the climate catastrophists practiced what they preached and sold me their beachfront property at a steep discount,” Alex Epstein, author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” told Fox News.

6.– ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE WILL CAUSE “NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST” BY THE YEAR 2000

In 1982, U.N. official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program, warned:

“By the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”

No such disaster occurred.

7.– MASS EXTINCTION BY 1995

In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

That did not happen.

A 2011 notice from the National Science Foundation quotes researcher Anthony Barnosky at UC Berkeley, who said: "So far, only 1 to 2 percent of all species have gone extinct in the groups we can look at clearly, so by those numbers it looks like we are not far down the road to extinction.”

Barnosky still expressed concern over a long time horizon, saying that 75 percent of species could go extinct “in as little as 3 to 22 centuries.”

8.– METALS DEPLETED BY 1990

Scientist Harrison Brown predicted in Scientific American that lead, zinc, tin, gold and silver deposits would be fully depleted before 1990.

But mining companies found new technologies and reserves, such that by 2019, none of those minerals were near depletion.

9.– THE REAL REASON?

Economist Walter E. Williams says environmentalists have occasionally tipped their hand about what motivates their predictions.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biology at Stanford University, said to Discover magazine in 1989. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Williams also cites Sen. Timothy Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado, who said in 1988: "We've got to try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

https://www.foxnews.com/scienc...rld-would-end-by-now

 

OldSalt posted:
direstraits posted:

Pardon if I remain a skeptic."


 

Is there anything that would convince you?

  Howabout the TRUTH, SNOWFLAKE

My favorite part of all this BS is when the Paris Accord was drained
into field lines under a mile of permafrost by way of the Snowman.
You can't snow the Snowman. MAGA now,, MAGA ready.

 

Jack Hammer posted:
OldSalt posted:
direstraits posted:

Pardon if I remain a skeptic."


 

Is there anything that would convince you?

  Howabout the TRUTH, SNOWFLAKE

My favorite part of all this BS is when the Paris Accord was drained
into field lines under a mile of permafrost by way of the Snowman.
You can't snow the Snowman. MAGA now,, MAGA ready.

 

Go back to the kiddie table Jack.  The adults are having a conversation.

direstraits posted:

The left wing Think Progress reports that about 3 million years ago the CO2 level equalled what we had today.  Pray tell, how did that happed?  Why wasn't all life made extinct?  Humans didn't exist.  Was it dinosaur farts that raised the levels so high.  Was there another species that reached the level of our civilization?  Only to have successive glaciers from five ice ages grind any sign of them to dust?  Pardon if I remain a skeptic.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were as high as they are today, sea levels were 60 feet higher and it was so warm that trees grew in Antarctica.

Current CO2 levels of 410 parts per million (ppm) were last seen on Earth three million years ago, according to the most detailed reconstruction of the Earth’s climate by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and published in Science Advances.

Their in-depth analysis of plant fossils and sediments reveal that such CO2 levels were last seen in the late Pliocene Epoch, a time when there were no ice sheets covering either Greenland or West Antarctica, and much of the East Antarctic ice sheet was gone. Temperatures were up to 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer globally, at least double that at the poles, and sea levels were some 20 meters (65 feet) higher."

https://thinkprogress.org/carb...p;utm_source=twitter

 

You're so hip!  "Pray tell, how did that happed?"

According to this graph from NASA,

Line plots of global temperature during the last 5.3 million years

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/

the average temperature 3 million years ago was roughly equal to (and maybe slightly less than) current average temperatures.

Here is a possible source for the CO2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilcotin_Group

How might a flood basalt event impact climate?

"A possible scenario is that a single flood basalt eruptive event - more than 1000 cubic km - would erupt a very large mass of sulfur dioxide gas and aerosol, some of which would enter the lower stratosphere. This would reduce the amount of light reaching the Earth's surface (e.g., Thordarson and Self, 1996; Self et al., 2006).
As a result, not only is the lower atmosphere cooled, but also photosynthesis could be reduced or even stopped if light transmission is sufficently impaired. A volcanic winter may ensue, lasting for the duration of the eruption (decades?) (Rampino et al., 1988). Perversely, perhaps, the indicators are that warming, rather than cooling, occurred during the P-Tr mass extinction event. This suggests accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a possible candidate. The flux rate from a single flow is relatively small, but over millenia substantial amounts of CO2 will accumulate in the atmosphere-ocean system, due to the long averagelifetime of CO2molecules in this system. However, if photosynthetic systems were reduced by the preceding volcanic winter, the drawdown capacity of the marine and terrestrial systems may not have been adequate to prevent a gradual accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Eventually, the cold/dark - warm/light cycles may have triggered the release of methane hydrates stored in permafrost or in the seabed, resulting in catastrophic release of methane and carbon dioxide, and a runaway greenhouse may have ensued. It is fair to state, however, that we are far from a complete understanding of the details of this process."

https://www.le.ac.uk/gl/ads/Si...anTraps/FBandME.html

direstraits posted:
OldSalt posted:
direstraits posted:

Was it dinosaur farts that raised the levels so high.


 

Sorry to inform you that the dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years ago.  So it couldn't have been that.

Mammoths, mastodons, and giant sloths, all vegans, which are notorious gas passers. 

Let's call it the Stinky Age.

My point is that Earth has undergone numerous changes of its own making.  Forests in the Arctic and Antarctic may not be from the warming periods, but that the planet flipped on its axis.  Hot places became come and cold hot.  At least 5 ice ages that ground the land down.  Not counting near extinctions from asteroids.  I've listed 9 catastrophes that never came to be.  There is much to be made from human caused global climate change -- not just wealth, but power over others.  So, I remain a skeptic.  I advocate we expand within the solar system.  Colonies on the moon and Mars.  Eventual exploitation of the asteroid belt for minerals.  Even now, there are plans to use rocket drones to mine near Earth asteroids.  

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×