Only Three Months Left For Planet Earth( and other false doomsday predictions)

[canada-man]

Sixteen Years Into The Antarctic Refugee Crisis

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor


Sunday, 2 May 2004

Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.

Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.

He said the Earth was entering the "first hot period" for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life". The warning - one of the starkest delivered by a top scientist - comes as ministers decide next week whether to weaken measures to cut the pollution that causes climate change, even though Tony Blair last week described the situation as "very, very critical indeed".

The Prime Minister - who was launching a new alliance of governments, businesses and pressure groups to tackle global warming - added that he could not think of "any bigger long-term question facing the world community".

Yet the Government is considering relaxing limits on emissions by industry under an EU scheme on Tuesday.

Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the main "green- house gas" causing climate change - were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level - 379 parts per million - was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.

"No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life," he said.

Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels "we will reach that level by 2100".

https://web.archive.org/web/2010081...e-ionlyi-place-to-live--literally-561947.html

 

[canada-man]

Climate model's dire predictions don't line up with reality - study

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...dy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[Frankfooter]

Sixteen Years Into The Antarctic Refugee Crisis

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally

Your article was talking about 2100 and on, not in sixteen years.
More bullshit from someone who doesn't read what they post.

 

[Gooseifur]

Isn't the 3 months up yet?

 

[Frankfooter]

Climate model's dire predictions don't line up with reality - study

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/worl...dy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Wrong again.

 

[canada-man]

Green Energy Prof Faces $1 Million Legal Fee Over Failed Attempt To Silence His Critics

Attempting to shut down debate and demonizing the opposition is one of the hallmarks of the all-renewable-energy tribe.

Last week, anti-hydrocarbon activist and documentary maker Josh Fox — along with Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, and several others — succeeded in briefly getting Michael Moore’s new documentary, Planet of the Humans, taken off of a website owned by a group called Films for Action.

Fox’s censorship effort was cheered by Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and journalist who tweeted “cheers to @joshfoxfilm and everyone who worked hard and quickly to make sure this dangerous film was retracted.” The DailyKos dutifully ran a story with the headline “Distributor pulls Michael Moore’s (@MMFlint’s) #PlanetOfTheHumans due to truthiness.”

But the “dangerous film” didn’t disappear. Planet of the Humans, which was directed and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, was never removed from YouTube. By Thursday afternoon, it had been viewed more than 4.6 million times. Fox’s censorship campaign led Planet of the Humans to post a note on its website saying that it does not “know of, or have any relationship with, an outfit called ‘Films for Action,’” and that any “information disseminated to the contrary is false.”

I have plenty of criticisms of Planet of the Humans. It’s an anti-human film that ignores our need for affordable and reliable energy to survive. It ignores the need for nuclear energy to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and it completely ignores the scourge of energy poverty. That’s an inexcusable omission given that about one billion people on the planet today have no access to electricity and another two billion or so are only using tiny amounts of juice.

But it’s also apparent that Planet of the Humans is an important film. The fact that Moore — the most successful documentary-film-maker in America as well as its most famous liberal who’s not a politician – would produce a film that attacks wind energy, solar energy, the Sierra Club, Al Gore, David Blood, Bill McKibben, and Vinod Khosla represents a rupture in left-leaning orthodoxy about energy and climate change. For causing so much trouble, Moore and Gibbs are being branded as apostates. To my ear, the outrage coming from Fox, McKibben, and others to Planet of the Humans sound like Greta Thunberg’s now-famous cri de coeur: “How dare you!”

But the effort to gag Planet of the Humans reveals something more sinister: the refusal by leading climate activists and academics to have an honest discussion about the limits of renewable energy and why renewables alone cannot save us from climate change or solve the problem of energy poverty. As a friend of mine put it, “The climatocracy can’t tolerate debate or disagreement.” Indeed, the belief that many high-profile climate activists and academics have in renewable energy borders on the cultish. As Gibbs asks at one point in the film, “Could we have a religion that we are unaware of?”

Attempting to shut down debate and demonizing the opposition is one of the hallmarks of the all-renewable-energy tribe. And there’s no small bit of irony in the fact that Fox’s effort to censor Planet of the Humans was launched just two days after his ally, Jacobson, was reproached by a federal court for trying to intimidate one of his critics by filing a frivolous lawsuit against him. On April 20, Jacobson was ordered to pay the legal fees of Chris Clack, the Colorado mathematician who Jacobson sued in 2017 for $10 million on claims that Clack had defamed him. Jacobson’s lawsuit, which also named the National Academy of Sciences, was a classic example of a SLAPP suit, or strategic litigation against public participation. What was Clack’s sin? He, along with nearly two dozen other prominent scientists, debunked the claims that Jacobson was making about – what else? — renewable energy.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...ndants-legal-fees-in-slapp-suit/#147e29aae0ac

https://www.thegwpf.com/green-energ...e-over-failed-attempt-to-silence-his-critics/

 

[Frankfooter]

Green Energy Prof Faces $1 Million Legal Fee Over Failed Attempt To Silence His Critics

Attempting to shut down debate and demonizing the opposition is one of the hallmarks of the all-renewable-energy tribe.
]

Nonsense.
Propaganda is the hallmark of the fossil fuel industry you back.
They are far worse than the Rockefellers, by the way.

Even Australia, the Fox run largest coal producer, is about to put in a massive renewable energy plant because its cheaper and can pay for itself in 4 years.

 

[canada-man]

Barents Sea Polar Bear Body Size Grew After 2005 Despite Less Sea Ice

A recent paper that attempted to correlate pollution levels and body condition of Barents Sea polar bears found body condition of female bears had increased between 2004 and 2017 despite a pronounced decline in summer and winter sea ice extent.

“Unexpectedly, body condition of female polar bears from the Barents Sea has increased after 2005, although sea ice has retreated by ∼50% since the late 1990s in the area, and the length of the ice-free season has increased by over 20 weeks between 1979 and 2013.

These changes are also accompanied by winter sea ice retreat that is especially pronounced in the Barents Sea compared to other Arctic areas” [Lippold et al. 2019:988]

This result explains all the fat female polar bear photos coming out of the Svalbard region in recent years.

However, it is totally at odds with predictions of catastrophic declines in polar bear numbers in the Barents Sea and assertions that Barents Sea bears are one of the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming (Amstrup et al. 2007; Hamiltion and Derocher 2019; Regehr et al. 2016; Stern and Laidre 2016) due to a dramatic loss of sea ice (see map below).

And that is before the high levels of sea ice in the region I’ve been reporting on here, here, here, here, and here.

Prior to this 2019 publication, all we have been provided with are body condition values for adult males (1993-2019) – showing them to have been doing well in recent years with no trend in body condition.

Now, after years of loud, public hand-wringing from polar bear activists, we find out that all along, adult females have been doing even better in recent years than they were before 2005 when there were more summer and winter ice.

Therefore, contrary to expectations, the Barents Sea and the Chukchi Sea bears have been shown to be thriving with less sea ice – and for the Barents Sea bears it’s a lot less ice.


https://climatechangedispatch.com/b...dy-size-grew-after-2005-despite-less-sea-ice/

 

[Frankfooter]

Hey you right winger, anti-immigrant types.

Your science denial is a double whammy of idiocy.
Not only is it fucking over the planet but its also going to lead to 1-3 billion mostly poor people having to emigrate to other countries, like the US, Canada and the EU.

‘Near-unlivable’ heat for one-third of humans within 50 years if greenhouse gas emissions are not cut
Areas of the planet home to one-third of humans will become as hot as the hottest parts of the Sahara within 50 years, unless greenhouse gas emissions fall, according to research by scientists from China, USA and Europe published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week. The rapid heating would mean that 3.5 billion people would live outside the climate ‘niche’ in which humans have thrived for 6,000 years.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

LOL....its going down to freezing on friday night, and they even said on the radio we might get some snow:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/toronto/m5h/daily-weather-forecast/55488?day=3

Not only do I not think Toronto's weather is getting warmer, I think its actually getting colder.
We havent had a nice, warm spring for many years now. Normal daytime temps should be around 15 to 17C

 

[Frankfooter]

LOL....its going down to freezing on friday night, and they even said on the radio we might get some snow:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/toronto/m5h/daily-weather-forecast/55488?day=3

Not only do I not think Toronto's weather is getting warmer, I think its actually getting colder.
We havent had a nice, warm spring for many years now. Normal daytime temps should be around 15 to 17C

Shows how out of touch you and grandpa are, the planet hasn't had a 'normal' year since 1985.

 

[canada-man]

No Climate Facts Permitted At ABC

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I cant take anymore of this global warming :smow:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/05/ontario-covered-snow-winter/


Sudbury

Bancroft

 

[canada-man]

LA Times Caught Inventing Fake Link Between Climate, Drought, Wildfires

https://climaterealism.com/2020/05/...-fake-link-between-climate-drought-and-fires/

 

[canada-man]

USA Today Keeps Changing Date For Climate Armageddon

Environmentalists in the media often seem to want to move the goalposts on their climate Armageddon predictions.

USA Today ran a story headlined “Unsuitable for ‘human life to flourish’: Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns” May 4, 2020.

USA Today stated that “By 2070, up to 3 billion people are likely to live in climate conditions ‘deemed unsuitable for human life to flourish.’”

Citing a new study, USA Today warned that “[w]ithout climate mitigation or migration, by 2070 a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to average annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today.”

Interesting, given that USA Today national correspondent Elizabeth Weise published a conflicting story in December 2019 headlined, “10 years to save planet Earth: Here are 6 imaginative climate change solutions.”

So, which is it? 10 years? 50 years? Perhaps it’s 30 years? Weise released another story in June 2019 headlined, “End of civilization: climate change apocalypse could start by 2050 if we don’t act, the report warns.”

Apparently, the outlet can’t seem to get its act together on this subject. In 2009, USA Today released an article citing eco-extremist Al Gore. The article was headlined, “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014.”

In February 2020, The Weather Channel reported that despite the total amount of ice being below average, “Ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean is currently the highest it has been since 2010 with support from the strongest polar vortex on record.”

Maybe someone should tell USA Today to keep its eco-crystal ball under wraps.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/b...t-make-its-mind-will-world-be-doomed-10-years

 

[Frankfooter]

I cant take anymore of this global warming :smow:

https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/05/ontario-covered-snow-winter/

Yup, a polar vortex in May.
Climate change increased extreme weather events suck ass.
Kind of like science deniers.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

We had another mini-snowstorm just now downtown Toronto:

https://twitter.com/Devin_Heroux/status/1259134149060898816

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Cambridge, Ont. this morning

 

[Moviefan-2]

USA Today Keeps Changing Date For Climate Armageddon

Environmentalists in the media often seem to want to move the goalposts on their climate Armageddon predictions.

USA Today ran a story headlined “Unsuitable for ‘human life to flourish’: Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns” May 4, 2020.

USA Today stated that “By 2070, up to 3 billion people are likely to live in climate conditions ‘deemed unsuitable for human life to flourish.’”

Citing a new study, USA Today warned that “[w]ithout climate mitigation or migration, by 2070 a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to average annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today.”

Interesting, given that USA Today national correspondent Elizabeth Weise published a conflicting story in December 2019 headlined, “10 years to save planet Earth: Here are 6 imaginative climate change solutions.”

So, which is it? 10 years? 50 years? Perhaps it’s 30 years? Weise released another story in June 2019 headlined, “End of civilization: climate change apocalypse could start by 2050 if we don’t act, the report warns.”

Apparently, the outlet can’t seem to get its act together on this subject. In 2009, USA Today released an article citing eco-extremist Al Gore. The article was headlined, “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014.”

In February 2020, The Weather Channel reported that despite the total amount of ice being below average, “Ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean is currently the highest it has been since 2010 with support from the strongest polar vortex on record.”

Maybe someone should tell USA Today to keep its eco-crystal ball under wraps.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/b...t-make-its-mind-will-world-be-doomed-10-years

Last month, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was quite clear that computer model predictions are only a "hypothesis" and should be taken with a grain of salt.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/25/coronavirus-models-deal-another-blow-to-faith-of-americans-devine/

He said computer model predictions about diseases "always overshoot." Without a doubt, the alarmist predictions by Imperial College that were accepted by many nations proved to be spectacularly wrong.

The computer model projections for the hypothesis of man-made global warming have the same problem.

 

[Frankfooter]

Last month, Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was quite clear that computer model predictions are only a "hypothesis" and should be taken with a grain of salt.

https://nypost.com/2020/04/25/coronavirus-models-deal-another-blow-to-faith-of-americans-devine/

He said computer model predictions about diseases "always overshoot." Without a doubt, the alarmist predictions by Imperial College that were accepted by many nations proved to be spectacularly wrong.

The computer model projections for the hypothesis of man-made global warming have the same problem.

Yes, their models aren't as sophisticated as climate change models.
Those models have had decades of fine tuning and are now really quite good.

Compare that with your guy, Dr Roy Spencer's predictions.