Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions

submitted by Tom_Bombadil from youtu.be

all 72 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ID10T 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

Remember when we were all gonna starve to death because acid rain was going to kill all the crops? No? Weird how many doomsday predictions haven't come true. (Slips on black Nikes with the white swoosh)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

It's all a bad joke. The doomsday predictions are all absurd.

Remember when they claimed COVID had a 3%-5% fatality rate?

People we're testing positive who never got sick.

A country in Africa tested goats blood, a papaya, and motor oil.
The papaya and the goat both had "COVID".

The main tool for control of three people is fear. But it's mostly bullshit.

[–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

COVID killed a lot of people that would have died within 1 or 2 years anyway.

COVID left a lot of people disabled. It's a very expensive disease for a country to have. As a biological weapon, it would have been quite great, because if wounded a lot of people, which drains resources of countries faster than having dead people.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

COVID killed a lot of people that would have died within 1 or 2 years anyway.

Yeah, people can forget that nearly 5% of the U.S. population is over 90 years old. And that a 90 year old is nearly 1,000 times more likely to die from the disease than a 20 year old.

A lot of the lockdown policy came down to the interesting question of: do we sacrifice the opportunities, experiences, and mental health of the young in order to protect the old? Or have the old really been here long enough?

We're far too stupid to have that conversation, though, so instead we just settled on dipshit sound bites like "It's a plandemic" and "If you can wear pants, you can wear a mask."

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

instead we just settled on dipshit sound bites like "It's a plandemic" and "If you can wear pants, you can wear a mask."

Says the pharma shill.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Sure, you're so attached to your set of dipshit sound bites that you don't need anyone to spout the opposite set of dipshit sound bites to qualify as a "pharma shill."

They don't have to say one word in support of a pharma company. All they have to do is recognize your sound bites as aggressively dumb.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Bill Gates's Event 201 included detailed plans of how to control the "disinformation" narrative, etc.

Event 201 was back in October of 2019. Before the "pandemic". They planned it out.

It's 110% a plandemic, and a scamdemic.

Pfizer's stock price is nosediving. People have already recognize the scam.

You lose.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Event 201 was a three and a half hour roleplaying exercise on pandemic preparedness. Of course we have events like that. Because we regularly have pandemics. We've had seven that killed >1M people in just the last 150 years. It would be insane not to do any preparation.

The way your mind works, if anyone prepares for a disaster, that means they caused the disaster.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It was a planned out corona virus table top exercise for the corona virus pandemic.

They planned it out. Including censorship of the media, and vaccines, and vaccine passports, and contact tracing.

None of these things were necessary, because covid is rebranded influenza. It was a hoax. A scam.

They planned out the plandemic. Well in advance.

And used their foreknowledge to make billions and billions as a scamdemic.

Bill Gates made 20:1 profits off of his Mod-eRNA patents, and experimental injection sales.

Mod-eRNA. Modified eRNA. It's a scamdemic.

[–]Hematomato 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes, I'm fully aware of your story; the only minor problem is that none of it happens to be true.

And ironically, it's your story that generates the actual scams. Those conspiracy sites have sold billions and billions of dollars in scammy products like NFTs, gold IRAs, sovereign citizen ID cards... just sucking the blood out of anyone gullible enough to fall for their stories.

It sucks, man. Here you are with literal brain damage from a stroke and they're playing on your gullibility to see if they can help themselves to as much of your retirement savings as possible.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

COVID left a lot of people disabled. It's a very expensive disease for a country to have.

Remdesivir, and other experimental therapies left them injured.

The flu went away in the winter of 2020.

"COVID" is rebranded influenza.

[–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Acid rain was mostly solved: https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happened-to-acid-rain. Every idiot learned that in high school.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

...maybe every Millennial idiot. Those of us who are Xers and Boomers just learned: oh, fuck, the rain's pH is dropping.

[–]binaryblob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That was true at the time. So, not sure how you could be against that.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Remember when we were all gonna starve to death because acid rain was going to kill all the crops?

Humanity responded to the acid rain crisis with much better reasoning than the global warming catastrophe. I guess the industries behind acid-sulphate air pollution weren't as rich as those behind fossil fuels.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Lol yeah I'm sure China has really helped solve the acid rain crisis. Amazing they can still grow crops in China.

The point is there is a huge industry of chicken littles proclaiming the sky is falling and other inconvenient truths.

You're easily influenced by these panic inducing proclamations, "WE MUST ACT NOW!!!" Meanwhile the solutions offered are often worse than the problem.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Lol yeah I'm sure China has really helped solve the acid rain crisis

The Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulfur Emissions was 1985. China wasn't doing a hell of a lot of air pollution back then.

The point is there is a huge industry of chicken littles proclaiming the sky is falling and other inconvenient truths.

Other way around. There's a huge industry of fossil fuel PR groups trying to stop people and countries from moving to other energy sources, trying to make the facts out to be unsure or wrong. The fossil fuel industry is revenue was $5.3 trillion in 2023. So they can spend a lot of money on science denial, as the tobacco industry did, and encourage people to put themselves at risk rather than have their profits interfered with.

There's no such money on the other side. No one owns the solar reserves nor the wind reserves. That alone should give you an hint about who's lying, even without noticing that a lot of the climate misinformation is coming from the same sources and the same scientists that did the tobacco-cancer denial earlier. Or that 99% of scholarly papers back up the scientific consensus.

You're easily influenced by these panic inducing proclamations, "WE MUST ACT NOW!!!" Meanwhile the solutions offered are often worse than the problem.

Are they though?

When you get an economist on to it, they seem to have findings like you got in the Stern Review which was included: "the costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly"

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Talk to me when you are freezing and starving because the power went out and your heater and stove is electric. You can't drive because you can't charge your car.

Yes if you want to talk about eliminating fossil fuel usage you aren't going to be taken seriously until you have a strategy on how we will increase our electricity output in time for those deadlines that right now are being arbitrarily and capriciously set.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Talk to me when you are freezing and starving because the power went out and your heater and stove is electric. You can't drive because you can't charge your car.

That should be some time. At the moment my solar panels are generating a lot more than I use.

Yes if you want to talk about eliminating fossil fuel usage you aren't going to be taken seriously until you have a strategy on how we will increase our electricity output in time for those deadlines that right now are being arbitrarily and capriciously set.

That's not an argument for climate science being wrong. But certainly changing the energy infrastructure takes some investment.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Fuck the poor am I right? What kind of scumbag goes around telling people to adopt policies that will create huge amounts of suffering and death, while smugly assuming you will be fine. Most likely you won't though.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Fuck the poor am I right?

Indeed no. In fact the poor are suffering more from climate change than the rich. So rich countries have an obligation to reduce emissions from that perspective too.

[–]ID10T 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It should be blaringly obvious at this point that current strategies to reduce emissions will cause far greater harm than good. Especially to the poor. The only people who can be taken seriously are those who propose increasing grid output, adding nuclear power plants, before banning fossil fuel consumption.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It should be blaringly obvious at this point that current strategies to reduce emissions will cause far greater harm than good. Especially to the poor.

You might think that if you didn't know anything about it.

https://www.oecd.org/env/cc/2502872.pdf

https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf

https://www.mercycorps.org/blog/climate-change-poverty

The only people who can be taken seriously are those who propose increasing grid output, adding nuclear power plants, before banning fossil fuel consumption.

I would advocate putting the correct price on fossil fuel combustion, and then letting the market sort out how to transition, rather than banning them outright by regulation. Companies are smarter than governments, because they have the time to look in detail at their particular situation.

[–]Armedpleb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Don't waste your time arguing with him. He's a bot. He even gets offended and threatens to report you if you call him a bot, lol.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Climate predictions were never science. It is fake science.
They always were political myths to get control over energy resources.
The WEF even use the fake science to get us to eat bugs and live in a prison city.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Climate predictions were never science.

It's science. You try to build a model of the earth with the atmosphere and oceans. And you see what will happen when you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses.

It's useful because it allows you to estimate the cost of impacts of climate change. And it allows you to prepare and adapt to particular ones.

It is fake science.

In what way "fake"?

They always were political myths to get control over energy resources.

Absolutely not. The science comes from scientific institutions.

[–]at_finn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I remember that all the coastal cities will be under water by 2010, and that by the 2015 there wouldn't be snow anymore in New York.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep. And it was all bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Tony Heller is not a climate scientist.

He has an undergraduate degree in geology, and a masters in electrical engineering. He tries to mislead people by putting "Science" in his URL, and is probably trying to skim traffic from actual climate scientists by using a name that is close to https://www.realclimate.org/.

You can tell from his framing of attacks on the fossil fuel industry whether or not they are climate related in this video purportedly about climate that he's not actually interested in climate. He's interested in defending the fossil fuel industry.

There's lots of such people in the denialosphere. Follow the money before buying in to this bullshit.

In reality, climate models have been pretty good. The more recent ones better than the older ones. Dr. Zeke Hausfather (PhD in climate science, University of California, Berkeley) goes through their evolution here: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Tony Heller is not a climate scientist.

You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to call out bullshit.

"Climate scientists" are not meteorologists. Meteorologist are physicists, and they do actual scientific research.

"Climate scientists" are computer modelers. They make up computer models, which are super scary, and predict absurdities. They are scaremongers.

They manufacture the narrative of the globalists billionaires, who want to starve the population off of using energy.

Which will starve the global economy, which runs on energy.

This will cause mass starvation in the population.

They want to eliminate carbon consumption, and carbon consumers.

They'll starve your family too; if you let them. You're a useful-idiot-bot.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to call out bullshit.

True. Nor to tell bullshit.

"Climate scientists" are not meteorologists. Meteorologist are physicists, and they do actual scientific research.

There's some overlap with meteorology. The Hadley centre uses the same models for climate and weather prediction.

"Climate scientists" are computer modelers. They make up computer models, which are super scary, and predict absurdities. They are scaremongers.

Some of them. There's lots of other approaches to climate science. It's interdisciplinary. You get paleo-climatologists that come from geology or palaeontology. You get biologists from all fields studying the impacts on species and ecosystems. James Hansen's early work using radiative transfer models was about trying to understand that atmosphere of Venus.

They are scaremongers.

No. They're academics, or private researchers.

They manufacture the narrative of the globalists billionaires, who want to starve the population off of using energy.

Because they want a smaller market for their products? You haven't thought this through, have you?

Which will starve the global economy, which runs on energy.

This will cause mass starvation in the population.

And you are calling them scaremongers?

You should try some self-reflection.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You aren't fooling any one.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

This isn't an argument.

Nevertheless, if you're against absurd scaremongering, you should go light on comments like "This will cause mass starvation in the population."

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Depopulation. That's the ultimate goal of the green agenda.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They scare people into heart attacks because the world will end because of climate change. They cause wars in Ukraine and Palestine to murder people and move drugs like Fentinal to kill more people. They engineer super viruses like COVID-19 to kill people with unsafe vaccines to protect us but they can cause heart attacks. Processed foods cause diabetes which makes most people poisoned and fat from eating them. They want us to die of natural causes like heart attacks so it is not murder, and when not enough of us die they stage World War 3 so we can be drafted and die fighting people who are just defending their homes.

[–]jacques1102 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If depopulation was the goal then they're doing a shitty job at doing it because the world's population is growing to 9.8 billion by 2050.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

the world's population is growing to 9.8 billion by 2050.

Is it???

China's population is collapsing.

And Japan's.

And European birthrates have plummeted. The population numbers are stabilized by immigration.

And the experimental injections have caused untold miscarriages. And possibly sterility.

They injected the majority of the planet with at least one dose, and we have no idea what's in the injection.
Pfizer tried to seal their data in the courts for 75 years.

Africa was the only region that successfully resisted the depopulation scheming.

And now certain parties are trying to stir up WW3 over an attack in Israel.

If the decision makers were sensible, then they'd investigate the attack and deal with it through a criminal investigation.

Something is very wrong in the world, and the actual facts are rarely discussed.

[–]jacques1102 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So what you're saying is black people are smarter than everyone else because they're resisting the depopulation plan?Weird because i was told african's have a low iq.Also the middle east's population and latin america's population is still exploding as well.

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So what you're saying is black people are smarter than everyone else because they're resisting the depopulation

Is this an attempt at sophistry?

The African nations resisted the injection agenda. I think it was a wise decision on their part.

Most people regret receiving the injections. This is common knowledge.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

China's population is collapsing.

It going to decline for the first time this year since the famines of the great leap forward.

Most people wouldn't consider a 0.02% decline "collapse". And that decrease is peculiar to China's time with their one child policy.

The world increased population by about 70 million.

They injected the majority of the planet with at least one dose, and we have no idea what's in the injection.

It depends on the brand. Some of them contain mRNA that produces the covid spike protein. Some contain the protein. That should give you some idea.

The population increased 70 million 2022 to 2023: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

The vaccine hasn't caused a population drop.

Africa was the only region that successfully resisted the depopulation scheming.

By ... green groups ... right?

So greenpeace released the virus from one of their secret labs?

Or did they merely infiltrate Oxford university and BioNTech and Pfizer and Moderna, and the manufacturers of each of these 40 Covid-19 vaccines

Something is very wrong in the world,

At least one out of it and you.

and the actual facts are rarely discussed.

Discuss away. What exactly have the greens done?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ah. Of course. Depopulation. Obviously. I see it all now.

(◔_◔)

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm sure you don't see it. I have a low opinion of Bots like yourself.

The global warming dupes are the same population as the experimental injection dupes.

They will earn Darwin awards.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Depopulation huh?

The ultimate goal of ... green groups worldwide? ...

[–]Tom_Bombadil[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Three useful idiot bots like yourself are clueless.

But the billionaire class support it.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

They control fossil fuel prices and use climate change as a bat to hit poor people who can't afford gas in their cars to go to a minimum wage job. Then they make unsafe EVs that can explode if the battery is hit in an accident and can only go 300 miles on a charge that takes hours to recharge. They buy out farms to stop farming cattle and grow weeds and veggies instead to make fake meat that has a lot more chemicals in it than real meat and tastes like beans and shit.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

They control fossil fuel prices

Climate scientists control fossil fuel prices huh?

How do they all agree on what they should be I wonder.

There must be these big academic conferences where they vote on it I guess.

Then they go back home, and talk to Putin and the Koch family and Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Who do what they say, because they understand that if they don't the climate scientist will go back to the library and science at them. HARD.

Then they make unsafe EVs that can explode if the battery is hit in an accident and can only go 300 miles on a charge that takes hours to recharge.

Petrol and diesel cars 20 times more likely to catch fire than EVs

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Not the climate scientists but the people the climate scientists work for. Quit twisting my words around.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Not the climate scientists but the people the climate scientists work for.

Chancellor or President of the University?

They go to Putin, the Koch family and Prince Mohammad bin Salman to set the price on fossil fuels?

And they do what they say, because they know that if they don't they will go to the university library and administrate at them. HARD?

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The people who pay the grants for the research. If it doesn't prove climate change there will be no more grants. It is all a money game to control science the news media and schools and colleges. They brainwash people into working for them or else they blackmail them or find a way to buy them off. You know as you work for the same people, ActuallyBot.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The people who pay the grants for the research.

Oh, so grants.gov and the NSF and GrantForward and the various national institutes and state government bodies and research charities, combine up with all the similar bodies in every other country and agree to only fund science that proves climate change. Unless that particular grant has nothing to do with climate science, in which case they just use the normal "non-climate science" funding procedure,which would be the one advertised?

And with all the hundreds of thousands of bodies that offer research grants, no one has yet leaked that climate science grants have a different process?

Makes sense. All you'd have to do is get all the money from big wind, and infiltrate every funding body in every country in the world. But without anyone objecting.

Wait a minute. What about research that doesn't include a grant application? Such as papers being put out by tenured professors or published from work done for doctoral theses? How come they don't reject the basic physics that increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect?

It is all a money game to control science the news media and schools and colleges.

Of course! And to control science the news media and schools and colleges, the most straightforward way would be to attack the climate change departments and only the climate change departments. Why didn't I think of that? Could it be because it's batshit crazy?

They brainwash people into working for them or else they blackmail them or find a way to buy them off.

That's a lot of people to blackmail. Google scholar returns over 65,000 papers for the search term "climate change" for this year alone. That must be about 200,000 authors. How do they get that much blackmail material every year, do you think? There must be a cast of tens of millions of agents collecting it.

You know as you work for the same people, ActuallyBot.

Ah. The paranoid delusional argument. At least that makes some plausible context to the above. (◔_◔)

[–]Armedpleb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ActuallyBot

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ActuallyBot

[–]Armedpleb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Call him ActuallyBot alone with no conversation. He should say something like: YOU'RE NAME CALLING ME. THAT'S AGAINST SAIDIT'S PYRAMID OF DEBATE BLAH BLAH BLAH I AM GOING TO REPORT YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH I EXPECT YOU TO DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE. I got him to say that twice.

[–]Armedpleb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a bot. Try calling him ActuallyBot and see how it reacts.