20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

[Charlemagne]

Science Lorraine Chow

Mar. 09, 2018 12:36PM EST

20,000 Scientists Have Now Signed 'Warning to Humanity'

A chilling research paper warning about the fate of humanity has received 4,500 additional signatures and endorsements from scientists since it was first released last year.

The paper—"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"—was published in November 2017 in the journal Bioscience and quickly received the largest-ever formal support by scientists for a journal article with roughly 15,000 signatories from 184 countries.

Today, the article has collected 20,000 expert endorsements and/or co-signatories, and more are encouraged to add their names.

The "Warning" became one of the most widely discussed research papers in the world. It currently ranks 6th out of 9 million papers on the Altmetric scale, which tracks attention to research. It has also inspired pleas from political leaders from Israel to Canada.

"Our scientists' warning to humanity has clearly struck a chord with both the global scientific community and the public," said lead author ecology professor William Ripple at Oregon State University in a statement.

The 2017 paper is actually an update to the original version published 25 years ago by the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was signed by 1,700 scientists then, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences.

The first notice started with this statement: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." It described trends such as the growing hole in the ozone layer, pollution and depletion of freshwater sources, overfishing, deforestation, plummeting wildlife populations, as well as unsustainable rises in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures and human population levels.

Unfortunately, the authors of the updated paper said that humanity failed to progress on most of the measures and ominously warned, "time is running out."

"Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change" from the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, the paper stated.

The authors concluded that urgent measures are necessary to avoid disaster. They called upon everyday citizens to urge their leaders to "take immediate action as a moral imperative to current and future generations of human and other life."

This week, three letters in comment and a response companion piece by the "Warning" authors was published in BioScience.

The response piece, "Role of Scientists' Warning in shifting policy from growth to conservation economy," includes two key areas for action in policy and science, from introducing a Nobel Prize in Economics for incorporating the limits of the biosphere to introducing a global price on carbon.

Watch below for an interview about the "Warning" paper with co-author Thomas Newsome of the University of Sydney's School of Life and Environmental Sciences:

https://www.ecowatch.com/warning-to-humanity-scientists-2544973158.html

 

[Freedom1970]

Sure , let's do something after the very wealthy stop living in mansions & using private jets. All the measures to address climate change are some sort of regulations which becomes just another STEALTH tax on the Middle and lower classes. That is why the DEMOCRATS love it so much. Just more public money for them to burn & more power in their hands to control the masses & move closer to Communism & Dictatorship

 

[FAST]

Strength in numbers,...

Could some one please explain why there is a need for 20,000 climate "experts",... ???

And from the OP,... "Role of Scientists' Warning in shifting policy from growth to conservation economy," , it does seem that anybody who's employment does not produce wealth, add to the GDP of a country, either doesn't understand economics,... or are inherently socialists/communists.

One should be very concerned that this bunch of self proclaimed "experts",... are to being taken seriously.

 

[canada-man]

Approaching ‘grand solar minimum’ could cause global cooling

https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonc...-could-auger-an-economic-change/#5686a36b34dc

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Oh for fuck sakes, would you stop it with this fear-mongering already!!!

 

[Nesbot]

It's easy for old people to deny their neglect of the planet for the sake of convenience, because they are selfish and won't be around to suffer the consequences of their inaction. And they don't particularly care about those who inherit the crap storm they leave behind. So posting this here, while admirable, is useless. The demographic on this board dictates that you're wasting your time.

 

[canada-man]

It's easy for old people to deny their neglect of the planet for the sake of convenience, because they are selfish and won't be around to suffer the consequences of their inaction. And they don't particularly care about those who inherit the crap storm they leave behind. So posting this here, while admirable, is useless. The demographic on this board dictates that you're wasting your time.

Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

400 scientific papers debunking climate alarmism

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/#sthash.ZTrqPmde.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/#sthash.0deDK77i.dpbs

 

[Frankfooter]

Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

400 scientific papers debunking climate alarmism

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/#sthash.ZTrqPmde.dpbs

http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/#sthash.0deDK77i.dpbs

What alternate theory do these papers back that explains the present rise in global temperature?
Is it like pornaddicts CERN theory about sending us to another dimension?

 

[hamermill]

We should worry more about the liberals winning the next election.

 

[Big Sleazy]

I think we need to tax volcanoes.

 

[oil&gas]

It's easy for old people to deny their neglect of the planet for the sake of convenience, because they are selfish and won't be around to suffer the consequences of their inaction. And they don't particularly care about those who inherit the crap storm they leave behind. So posting this here, while admirable, is useless. The demographic on this board dictates that you're wasting your time.

Future generation in the not-too-distant future are going to live in
a better place than the one we are living in. Most of the east-to-extract
oil and gas resources will be gone by the time they inherit earth
from our generation. That means no more fear of global warming as they
will have to live on wind and solar power. Most of the economical mineral
resources will also be depleted. That means environmental damage associated
with mining precious and base metals will become a concern of yesterday.
They won't have sufficient supply of petrochemical and potash fertilizers
for farming. They will live a healthier life eating food produced by
organic agriculture.

 

[bver_hunter]

Reddit commenters point to reasons they went from being climate contrarians to having confidence in mainstream climate science.

By Karin KirkTuesday, April 18, 2017

The political environment in America is gripped by deep polarization.

Throughout the presidential campaign and in the initial months of the Trump presidency, the public and national politicians have been digging themselves ever deeper into entrenched positions, leaving little hope for compromise or reconciliation.

But sometimes people do the unimaginable: They change their minds.

Sometimes people do the unimaginable: they change their minds.
An AskReddit discussion poses a tantalizing question, “Former climate deniers, what changed your mind?” Responses to the query offer a rare glimpse into the processes of how some people switch camps, outgrowing their parents’ values, having trans-formative experiences, or being worn-down by continually mounting scientific evidence.

The gems of the discussion were 66 posts by people who did a turnabout on their views of climate change. Their comments provide insightful narratives describing the origins of their skeptical beliefs, the reasons they changed their opinions, and the events that caused them to reverse course. Their comments reported below have been lightly edited in a few cases to fix the kinds of typos that routinely characterize such online chats.
One helpful commenter suggested, “Someone needs to take these stories, make a ’10 people who stopped fearing science – number 7 will shock you.'” So I pulled out all the responses, analyzed them for common themes, and digested the takeaways. Wait ’til you see number four.

Family values most common source of science-resistant beliefs
About a third of the commenters started off their post by discussing underlying reasons they originally rejected climate science. Of those, the most common involved beliefs of their family members.

I denied it through middle school, mostly because my family rigorously shot it down whenever it was remotely mentioned.

I grew up actively and obnoxiously denying climate change because my dad told me it wasn’t real.

The Reddit commenters pointed to partisan and tribal values as the second most-common basis of their earlier climate change denial.

I never really questioned my opinion on climate change for a while; a lot of people I know denied climate change, so I figured they must be right.

I had kinda developed the idea that liberals were the “bad guys.”

… raised Republican. Naturally, I believed climate change is leftist bullshit.

I was just in denial and didn’t want to concede any points to the other team.

A surprising source of pushback involved a reluctance to confront the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are contributing substantially to the problem.

I really doubted it for a while, because honestly it scared me. I figured if I just denied it and pretended it wasn’t a thing, it wouldn’t be and it would just go away.

I believed the ‘climate change is happening but humans aren’t the main cause’ bull. No idea why I thought it, guess it was just said enough and sounded good [because] it removed any blame from us (as a species).

I have never been a Climate Change denier, but didn’t want to believe that it was man-made.

Religion was only a minor factor the Reddit commenters pointed to, and it was commonly entwined with family influences.

I was a complete science denier because that’s what my parents and my private Christian school taught me.

With an understanding of the roots of their beliefs, people settled in to write about what prompted them to do a 180 on their outlook of climate change. Here are the top four factors that caused the Reddit commenters to stop rejecting climate science.
Science is the biggest factor in shifting mindsets

Nearly half of those previously hell-bent on rejecting climate science actually credited science for updating their views on climate change. The most common rationale was that they simply learned the scientific basis for how human activities and greenhouse gas emissions are principal factors behind the changing climate over the past several decades.

… I reali[z]ed that co2 has an extremely long lifespan in the atmosphere compared to these other gases, and it’s the only one that we are directly responsible for producing via fossil fuels etc.

Another prevalent science-assisted conclusion was the ever-increasing evidence that the climate is changing. The relentless accumulation of data finally became inescapable.

The amount of measurable, observable proof was just too much to ignore.

For me it was when I saw a simple chart – world temp and world CO2 levels, on [a] marked timeline.

… it’s just difficult for me to deny it with the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it. From what I’ve learned about the process it just makes too much sense to sound fake.

 

[bver_hunter]

Lastly, 9 percent of the commenters acknowledged trust in scientists or recognized the weight of the scientific consensus.

I started trusting what actual climate scientists said and not what politicians or political pundits were saying.

I’m not an expert so I need to take my lead from them. At a certain point it was no longer possible to deny it.

This sentiment was often paired with commenters’ saying that many voices discrediting climate science appear to them to be untrustworthy or conflicted (more about that later). In essence, these people switched camps based on which side they perceived to be more credible.

The strong influence of science in the responses is bound to be encouraging for scientists who have made understanding the climate system their life’s work and passion. Teachers and science communicators strive to make science relevant and understandable. And at least by this sampling, their work appears not to have been in vain, despite what some describe as an anti-science countercurrent in today’s popular discourse.

Stewardship and care for Earth have universal appeal

Regardless of political ideology, few people admire or yearn for pollution. The notion that we humans ought to take care of the planet struck a chord with more than one-fourth of the Reddit commenters. People recounted stories of polluted skies, dying coral reefs, and collapsing glaciers. Witnessing damage to the environment caused some to acknowledge that humans are altering the earth after all. These anecdotes stood in stark contrast to a common misconception in some quarters that humans are too insignificant to affect the planet.

I’m just worried that future generations down the line that do have to worry about it … (and when it will be too late for them to do anything about it, if we ignore it) will look back and wonder why we didn’t do anything when we had a chance.

The benefits of clean energy also emerged as a theme.

Like a lot of people in this thread have been saying, whether you believe in climate change or not, shouldn’t we just take care of the planet regardless? I mean working against climate change would create advancements in technology, and potentially a more sustainable energy source than fossil fuels, which would solve the inevitable issue of when we run out of the stuff.

One commenter made an appeal to humans’ better nature.

I’d rather unnecessarily make the world a nice place to live than unintentionally contribute to making it less livable for many.
Climate change for many can certainly be a depressing topic, and beating people over the head with doomsday scenarios is unlikely to be effective. But humans can and often do respond to information, experiences, and visuals that ask us to confront the way our species treats the planet. This sampling of Reddit commenters provides some hope that policies and solutions that create less pollution can appeal to the responsibility we feel toward the environment and toward future generations.

Weird, warm, and wild weather help convince people that climate change is real
No. 3 reason graphic

One of the difficulties in teaching about climate change is the mistaken perception that impacts will take place far-off into the future, and someplace far away. For some, the problem simply lacks immediacy. However, when people have a first-hand experience with changing weather, their views can be profoundly altered.

The most common observation of the weather expressed by the Reddit commenters was that it has been just plain weird.

… the past 3 or 4 years the weather has just been totally bizarre. Winters have been unusually warm, with flash major snow storms scattered throughout, and it’s gotten to the point where something just blatantly feels wrong about it.

Others noted the warmth; several people linked their weather experiences to outdoor recreation, or lack of snow in the winter.

The seasons get worse and worse every year at my local ski resort.

I started looking at winters and how there is less and less snow every year and that made me a believer.

… it was 70 degrees in February and 20 degrees in March.

Public opinion researchers at Yale University and George Mason University find that 51 percent of Americans think global warming is harming people in the U.S. already, or will do so within the next 10 years. This outlook is particularly prevalent in the coastal states. Moreover, unusually warm weather patterns have been shown to increase people’s acceptance of climate change, at least temporarily.
Number Four Will Shock Some: Climate denial appears to be untrustworthy

No. 4 reason graphic

An interesting sentiment among the commenters was that climate science deniers’ attempts to discredit climate science often had the opposite effect. Commenters concluded that many of those denying climate change do so for political or financial gain, or that they are simply untrustworthy.

I realized that many of the other people denying anthropogenic climate change were being funded by the fossil fuel industry and that almost everyone else – most importantly, the vast majority of climate scientists – agreed on the human cause.

I quickly discovered that every single argument meant to dismiss the science or discredit it was rooted in profound ignorance. Which makes sense in hindsight as how can we expect conservative bloggers to know anything about carbon isotopes, silicate weathering, aerosol dimming, albedo effects, mean resident times of green house gasses etc.

Then I started thin[kin]g about it on my own and realized that everyone who was a “denier” had a vested financial interest in ignoring the problems of fossil fuels. Basically coal companies and oil companies.

… the major deniers were becoming more and more just cranks.

Long-time climate scientists and climate science educators can find it frustrating to go head-to-head with those indelibly determined to reject climate science. The Reddit commenters suggest that their efforts to undermine sound science can backfire, and can actually boost people’s sense that the science is legitimate after all. Despite initially being doubtful about climate change, people’s exposure to misinformation in a number of cases led them to reevaluate their original views. That’s cause for hope, and it shows that it’s worthwhile to illuminate how abject climate science denial in many cases is spurred by financial, political, and “world view” factors unrelated to actual scientific understanding.

The circumstances of changing viewpoints
Many of the Reddit commenters noted a specific catalyst that shifted their stance. The most common was a science class in high school or college.

… in [high] school, we had a week-long segment on weather systems and climate change. We watched a documentary on climate change which included an interview with Al Gore (didn’t like Al Gore at the time due to my parents). I wasn’t interested in what Al wanted to say, but couldn’t turn away from the data that he was showing….I didn’t like his conclusion so I did A LOT of research on the topic. Reading through many of the reports that were cited in the documentary, I was very surprised to realize that the docuentary was not at all exaggerating. My view did a 180. I felt embarrassed for being so rude to my teacher when topics like this were discussed.

Videos and films also proved to be game-changing, such as Chasing Ice, Planet Earth, or a video in church:

… the biggest turning point was then a video put out by my church actually touched on the importance of caring for the Earth as a gift from God and as a home for future generations. Until that point I had kinda developed the idea that liberals were the “bad guys” but that video forced me to put a little more thought into things.

A conversation with a peer or trusted expert helped people get their questions answered.

I changed my mind by having a very civilized discussion with another student, we acknowledge the shortcomings (aka arguments against it), and supporting evidence. I realized that there wasn’t a choice between everything is right, or nothing is right. Some is more right than others, and there [is] some very good core evidence to show that the essence of climate change is in fact a thing.

But after I talked with an actual expert who wasn’t involved in agendas at all, it was clear that it wasn’t some skeevy political front, it was actually sound science.

Changing one’s worldview is psychologically difficult. Admitting being wrong is not something most of us can do casually. Some commenters noted that their evolution was in part due to simply growing up and becoming their own person. Others recalled a watershed moment, like observing sea ice from 35,000 feet on a flight from northern Europe. Lastly, some people said their resistance were succumbed to mounting evidence over time. These insights reveal some of the mechanics of changing one’s mind and different pathways that can lead people to re-calibrate their opinions.

For those wanting to help others improve their understanding of climate change, the Reddit thread offers some tangible takeaways.

Don’t be afraid to use science – either the scientific basis for how we change the climate, or the enormous body of evidence that it’s happening.
Point out the shared values in taking care of the Earth, polluting less, and allowing future generations greater opportunities to flourish.
Help people realize that climate change is already upon us, right here, right now. It’s not remote in time or in distance: The changing climate is altering our weather systems and outdoor environment.
Leverage many peoples’ well-established public trust in scientists while acknowledging the public’s healthy skepticism toward special interests.
Allow me my own bit of parting advice: be nice. None of the commenters lauded the effectiveness of flaming arguments, shaming, or condescending treatment. Letting go of a long-held belief is hard. We can support people and give them rational, relatable reasons to appreciate the science of climate change. We have the evidence and the credibility on our side. Let’s not squander the high ground.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/04/changing-minds-on-a-changing-climate/

 

[SuperCharge]

Canada's carbon scam. The math doesn't lie.

Canada produced 732 megatons of carbon in 2014. (Have to use 2014 as it's the only # avail. to us)

It takes 47,000,000 (47 million) tress to clean 1 megaton of carbon from the atmosphere.

So 34,404,000,000 (34 Billion) trees are needed to clean 732 megatons of carbon from the atmosphere.

There are 396,000,000 (396 million) hectares of forest in Canada and between 1000 & 2500 tress in each hectare. So let's play it safe and say there is only 1000 trees per hectare. This means there is roughly 390,000,000,000 (390 billion) trees in Canada.

So........309,000,000,000 / 34,404,000,000= 11.3

We actually clean 11 times the carbon out of the atmosphere that we produce.

That's not including CO2 consumed by greenery other than trees. Things like crops, grass, seaweed, even moss eat up huge quantities. We'd probably be without such things if it wasn't for volcanos.

So I propose that other countries start paying Canada for cleaning up their C02 emission :applouse:

 

[oil&gas]

We must step up our consumption of crude
oil and natural gas. Hopefully too little of it will remain
by the end this century to pollute the world on the same
scale today.

 

[barnacler]

There is nothing more common than scientific doomsday scenarios, promoted by the most wonderful scientists, just like there is a constant parade of financial gurus predicting disaster, or religious so-called prophets calling for the end of the world.

Anyone remember the 'Club of Rome' - a group of the world's foremost scientific experts - predicting in the book "The Limits to Growth' in the 70s 70s that the world was DOOMED - I mean it was INEVITABLE - that we were going to run out of all resources in a few years? Well, not only did we not run out of anything, the prices of all commodities soon plunged as there were vast oversupplies. A more precise OPPOSITE situation could not have occurred if they tried.

The experts said that Japan's economic model was superior to ours in the 80s just as Japan went into a 25 year funk.

There is always a tremendous demand for doom and gloom. But in the meantime the world gets measurably better all the time. More attention to the environment and wildlife than ever before. Cleaner technologies. Life expectancy, infant mortality, female education all getting better.

I fully expect the world to get much cooler and cleaner in the next few decades.

 

[Frankfooter]

There is nothing more common than scientific doomsday scenarios, promoted by the most wonderful scientists, just like there is a constant parade of financial gurus predicting disaster, or religious so-called prophets calling for the end of the world.

Sure, but there's also been a lot of record storms, heat, cold, drought and just general screwy climate change.
Anybody who doesn't think the climate has changed must not get outside much.

 

[jcpro]

Yawn. They've been spinning this bs longer than I've been alive. Never amounts to anything.

 

[Ref]

Maybe 75 years of measurable data out of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old and yet we can identify trends.

As George Carlin stated - The planet has survived a hell of a lot worse than mankind has ever or will ever throw at it. The planet isn't going anywhere, it's humans that will be going. We are all just another form of life that will have existed on this rock.

 

[canada-man]

After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’


For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

9. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth

The year 2009 was a bad time for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then.

10. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2017 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

11. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green

Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

About 930 million people around the world were undernourished in 2002, according to U.N. data. By 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.

12. Global warming apocalypse 1980s edition

The U.N. was already claiming in the late 1980s that the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

The San Jose Mercury News reported June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

That prediction didn’t come true 17 years ago, and the U.N. is sounding the same alarm today.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/25/a...still-predicting-a-global-warming-apocalypse/