Which ones? Can you list them? Here’s a compilation of predictions that didn’t come to pass…
Which ones? Can you list them? Here’s a compilation of predictions that didn’t come to pass…
I am not here to debate the issue. Climate change is real, and many of the main predictions have come to pass. Have all of them, to the nth degree? Of course not. Science doesn’t work that way. There are always some predictions that are wrong, so then you go back to the drawing board and see why. Additionally, I am certainly not going to even waste my time debunking material from CEI. Their arguments are dishonest, at best, and ignore essentially all of the science. Believe what they say, if you like, but you are being lied to. CEI puts out some of the most pervasive anti-climate change material there is, and it is just plain wrong for the most part.
The articles compiled were not produced or reported by CEI. Shooting the messenger doesn’t prove a point.
I wasn’t asking to debate only some examples of the predictions you state came true. Guess that’s a “no”.
I have to be selective in what I choose to debate, otherwise this debate would be under way ad infinitum. It is perfectly reasonable to discount anything produced or shared by CEI, as they are completely uninterested in a scientific debate based on established scientific conclusions. They are ideologically based. What would be my point in debating the points they bring up?
The blurb under the title says it all:
" Thanks go to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips and posted them on RealClimateScience."
First, this represents a compilation of news articles, which is not a primary data source for the science. Secondly, it is cherry-picked by another climate science denying organization, “Real Climate Science,” which is anything by “real” in terms of how they use the science. Hopefully you can understand, therefore, why I have no interest in a debate based on information from such a source.
If you truly are interested in a debate of whether climate change predictions have been correct or not, give me some references from some actual science-based sources that are not ideologically biased. Show me from NOAA or NASA data sources where the predictions have been wrong. Here is a challenge, show me from one scientifically based source where the global mean temperature predicted for 2018 was wrong from models developed over the past decade.
Here’s a bonus. I will admit that some predictions have been wrong. For example, the amount of Greenland ice that has melted as of this year has been greater than predicted by the models.
Again, not asking to debate. Maybe just share the “many of the main predictions coming to pass”? You are stating that as fact so I thought I’d ask? Do you consider my asking for examples a debate? This should be an easy one for you.
It is appropriate, but I would rather respond with an article, as extracting the list all over again is tedious. I can make a brief list to give quick examples, but without citing references. The reason I thought you were debating is based on the link you shared. All CEI and RCS care to do is debate, ad nauseum, so by giving me a link to something of theirs gives that impression.
Predictions that have come true:
- Global mean temperature has risen at the rate predicted.
- Sea level rise has occurred at the rate predicted.
- Frequency of wildfires has increased as predicted.
- Increasing frequency and severity of severe weather events as predicted (although we are early yet in seeing the worst of these predictions).
- Ocean water has become increasingly more acidified, as predicted.
- Bird migration timing has shifted as predicted.
- World glaciers have melted extensively, many disappearing entirely, as predicted.
- Arctic sea ice has melted more extensively and thinned significantly, as predicted.
- Spring flowering time for temperate zone flowering plants has shifted up to two weeks earlier in the spring, as predicted.
- Mean ocean temperatures have increased as predicted, although the depth distribution of the increased heating has had to be remodeled a bit. This is a complex one, as the predictions were correct, but because a lot of the increased heat migrated to lower ocean layers where it was not immediately detected and accounted for.
There are 10 predictions that have so far been correct. Not a bad list. I will see if there is a good summary article in my resources to cover this more thoroughly.
The press collection shows that the makers of failed apocalyptic predictions often are individuals holding respected positions in government and science. Your typed list doesn’t show the predictions that were made 20 years ago and their “coming to pass”. I could type a list of items but would never suggest someone consider it as proof of anything.
However…such a strong statement should definitely include a source.
Let me blunt. I glanced over the press clippings in the article you linked. Those are just that, press clippings. Many of those predictions in the press clippings were based on misunderstandings or outright confusion of what scientists were actually saying. For example, there never was a scientific consensus prediction that another ice age was coming, That is a myth perpetrated by those who are hell bent on ridiculing and debunking real climate science in any way possible. This is also an example of exactly what I get tired of doing. I cannot count the times I have had to correct the record on the climate cooling myth. This is why one should never make conclusions about what scientists have said just from the popular press. Sometimes the popular press just gets it wrong. Here is the best article, with numerous citations, showing the problem with this myth: https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Secondly, many of the other press clippings are quoting near fringe scientific predictions. If you want to know what the climate scientists back in the late 70s and mid 80s were predicting, you need to look for what the consensus was at that time, not what a scientist here or there was saying. There was a much broader spectrum of predictions at that time, some from what I would characterize as on the edges of the consensus climate community. Many of those predictions sounded fantastic, which they were, and few other climate scientists would have endorsed them. I, like many scientists back then (the 80s for me, since that is when my career in science began), ignored the more outrageous predictions, but you can bet the popular press grabbed them, as they always do. So, of course many of those predictions are wrong, and I don’t have time to play whack-a-mole with every wacky prediction from thoses days. Those were not the main predictions from the center of the stream climate researchers, the person who wrote that article is being extremely disingenuous to string such obviously “out of the mainstream” climate change garbage. This is similar to someone claiming that SDAs are non-trinitarian because there were SDA theologians in the 19th century who did not believe in the trinity. Not quite a perfect comparison, but I hope you get my point. Just because some climate science somewhere, sometime made a prediction, does not mean said prediction was endorsed by the climate research community.
The reason my list sounds so different from those is that my list is based on what the consensus group of researchers have predicted. Some of those prediction date back to the 70s, others are a bit more recent, mostly 90s when the models and data were more extensive.
Good for you, Kayla…I am happy that you are following your passion and see the connection between faith and stewardship.
Adventism has traditionally not emphasized Earth Stewardship or Eco-anything. I believe that it has taken time for the influence of the outside world to make impact upon some of the Adventist youth and bring about awareness on the topic.
Because Adventism has always stressed the “Soon, imminent, return of Christ”- this has resulted a lack of care about the environment in general. The typical reasoning appears to always be that the Earth is going to be renewed anyway…so why be concerned? This type of thinking has also extended to other issues such as not using organic or sustainable practices.
I do not believe in scaring children by preaching that the world is going to end before they are even adults…or even elevating the issue to become a “religion” in and of itself. However…the default seems to be that either one is considered an “Eco-fanatic”…or it is a “Non-issue”. Surely, the truth does lie somewhere in the middle at very least. I don’t generally hear the middle ground of responsibility for our environment, and that…really is a shame.
OK. Just would be nice to see a an originally published prediction from a source you would accept and when they came to pass. Is that too much to ask?
[ My sources New York Times Washington Post Time Magazine Boston Globe Los Angeles Times The Guardian NASA]
By the way Al Gore and now Obama must feel pretty good about turning this around since they bought ocean front homes, Obama’s on an island?
be of good cheer…trump is in the process of being impeached, only the third president to experience this signal disgrace…
while things are certainly moving quickly, i’d be surprised if they moved that quickly…my best guess is that the amorality of trump is the pendulum swing that prepares the way for a particularly conscientious, religious president, who will be more in lock step with francis…and maybe by then the climate change marches all over the world will have done more to force congress’s hand…
greta thunberg just led a march of half a million in downtown montreal today…she really seems to be perfectly situated to accelerate the pope’s climate change agenda…it’s almost supernatural how her disability and poise have come together for such a perfect message delivery…
Kayla’s article has inspired me to the extent that I dare say that all Seventh Day Adventists should do what they can to protect the environment and preserve it to the glory of God.We can see the effects of climate change around the wor;d and as responsible Christians and citizens we should do what we can to preserve this world-. It is our home and God’s earth. Lets honour Him!
I agree with you here. We are not going under in 10 years or even 20. The tundra is becoming tillable, while the equatorial regions are not becoming hotter. Our CO2 footprint is as it was in the 80s secondary to more use of methane.
The left wishes to impose their program on us. The models are not always accurate, but the model makers still wish to impose their will.
Well, then are they just as out on a limb now? AOC said we had 12 years. Got quite a bit of positive coveraage.
I believe the planet is getting warmer, but am not so sure that it is going to be a disaster. And the cure seems worse that the disease.
Great article, Paul!
Impeachment will not solve this problem. First, there is no way you will get enough Republican senators to impeach. None of them have the courage to stand up for the country rather than the party, because they know they will be primaried out if they do. The orange man holds about 30% of the electret in his pocket and, like he said “I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and they will still support me”. Sad to say, he’s correct. I never thought people could be so stupid.
Let’s say they succeed in impeaching him. What are we left with. A right wing religious fanatic who will be even more likely to bring about the destruction of the wall of separation between church and state. So no…I am not of good cheer.
And when all is said and done, the environment will still continue to be destroyed.
I have noted that on other threads you feel that conservative views are always suspect and not to be taken seriously, while more liberal views are. Do you really think your liberal sources are unbiased and are not agenda driven? Isn’t that a bit naive? Aren’t you taking confirmation bias a bit too far?
Lindy, the alternative for the deploarbles was to be crushed. Was it so stupid of them to vote for one that would protect their interests?
The Lord’s prayer says, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” The NT knows nothing of dying and going to live in heaven. It knows nothing of seeking escape from this planet. That actually sounds more gnostic than Christian. It is not the biblical gospel of the kingdom.
The NT speaks of heaven coming to earth, to restore, and transform God’s creation to what he had always intended it to be. This is the fullness of the kingdom which we have yet to experience. So, if we take the Lord’s prayer and the biblical gospel of the kingdom seriously, then our job isn’t to escape earth, it’s to help transform it in the time we have in the here and now. It’s to be the advance guard whose task is to implement the vision and reality of human flourishing, mercy, justice, and creation wholeness that Jesus will bring in all its fullness.
This means that we need to care for one another and the planet as integral to the gospel of salvation, not as an option. A new heavens and earth will be our home. That means that earth is not a place from which we escape. It is one for which we should care. This says to me that someone such as N.T. Wright is on the ball when he writes, “Jesus is coming…plant a tree!”
In connection with the reduction of carbon emissions, planting trees/reforestation can only have a positive effect on the environment and the impact of climate change. For the church to publicly take a stand on creation care is not pagan…it is a necessary response that is perfectly in line with the gospel, and with the original commission and responsibility that God gave to humanity in the beginning.