Posts Tagged ‘climategate’

Predictions old and new

Posted: December 31, 2010 by datechguy in oddities
Tags: , , ,

Nope this isn’t a post about my predictions for 2011 this is instead about predictions in the past that have become busts:

It is always entertaining to look at predictions from the past, and see how far off they were. In the 1920s, the assumption was that by the 1950s, we would all be getting around in flying cars. Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward describes how by the year 2001, capitalism would have completely disappeared (at the instigation of the capitalists, who would see the advantages of socialism), replaced with a democratic socialism where everyone ate in common mess halls, owned everything in common, and there was almost no violence anymore.

Clayton then links to this list of predictions of environmental catastrophes that weren’t and concludes thus:

When scientists make apocalyptic predictions based on claims of science, I expect them to hit their marks, or have a darn good explanation for why not.

The problem being these days that huge amounts of cash ride on these predictions and the right way of looking at things can be the difference between a well-funded grant keeping you in champagne for decades to teaching chemistry at a community college. More importantly with the amounts of money involved any challenge to the orthodoxy becomes not so much a scientific debate as a threat to a person’s standard of living requiring a strong and sometimes devastating counter.

The whole Global Warming bit has become basically a giant 21st century version of The Sting with the taxpayers of the western world as the mark. I predict that when it fails there will be a new version with a new prediction and a new urgency that will drive media coverage and funds for NGO to keep them in caviar for another decade or two.

As the sun beings to rise on a day when the current (6:50 a.m.) wind chill of 10 degrees is the warmest we see for a bit.

We see that the religion of Global Warming oops sorry Climate Change is still the religion of choice for our friends of the left (much better than that Christian stuff with actual rules on how to treat people) and we have a flock of stories on the subject Lets Start with Don Surber who comments on this post at the NYT blog concerning Global warming being actually worse than what we think:

This tells me two things.

1. The global warming crowd are now hiding behind the euphemism “climate change” because the post is about a rise in temperature.

2. Obviously the global warming side is not winning even with the media dominated by so many True Believers in this crackpot theory.

I have a problem with people who mock balanced coverage. That is supposed to be the goal of journalism. Journalists are supposed to inform not educate.

The other problem is framing this as a debate on how high the temperature will rise. There are those scientists who fear a return to global cooling as we feared would happen in the 1970s. The sudden drop in sunspots in the summer of 2007 could portend a return to pre-1850 temperatures.

Don Don Don this is a religion, it has nothing to do with what is actually going on.

Ed Driscoll at PJM continues pointing to the coverage and makes a prediction:

We reviewed a number of those headlines then and now, in our “Hide the Decline” edition of Silicon Graffiti last year. Tune in here if you missed it.

And speaking of movies, as I mentioned back in March, a lot of Hollywood’s recent global warming doomfests are going to be remembered as updated versions of Reefer Madness to the next generation of movie fans. Today’s global warming fear-mongering is tomorrow’s late-night camp TV.

The irony of course is today as the east coast is hit by a blizzard and Atlanta has wind chills in the 20’s Morning Joe replays an interview with James Cameron talking all Global warming and how we must act.

He quotes this post by Stacy that says in part:

The problem, of course, is that Science keeps running head-on into those stubborn little things called “facts.” Despite all these “Trust Us We’re Scientists” arguments, people still refuse to believe that global warming causes record snowfall:

With the East Coast gripped by bitter cold, Paris paralyzed by snow and a headline in the UK’s Daily Express exclaiming, “Britain is Freezing to Death,” global warming alarmists will again have to fall back on their “climate change” sleight of hand to explain away the cold.

That’s just one of the “Top 10 Bad Developments for Global Warming Alarmists.”

Mind you that post was written on DEC 22nd 5 days before the events of today.

Meanwhile the latest from the left wing Guardian was just too much for Ann Althouse:

When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science.

Unaware? I don’t think “unaware” enters into it considering the e-mails, Don Surber again:

I worked for a while on a dairy farm. My job was to push the brown stuff outside.

Hey Cohen isn’t a weather expert; he’s a dairy farm worker.

Blizzards across the northern hemisphere and a white Christmas in Australia do not disprove global warming. The lies from the researchers, as disclosed in Climategate, already did that.

Forgetting the arrogance of us determining what the proper “climate” is supposed to be we can bottom line
Global warming/Climate Change with two goals:

Goal 1: To advance a collectivist agenda by redistributing wealth from those who produce (ie da West).

Goal 2: To allow the elites to once again act as feudal lords using tax payer funds to support themselves while taking the odd jet to comfortable locations around the globe where they can eat the finest foods, drink the finest liquors and enjoy comfortable companionship while proclaiming to the world their moral superiority while urging you to shut off that extra light to save the world.

The only green thing about Global Warming and Climate change is the cash that will be extorted from you.

As “Global Warming”/”Climate Change” crowd decides to go the full acorn and play naming games:

An administration that goes out of its way to make terrorism sound less dangerous than it really is (i.e. “man-caused disaster”) makes the push to sell “global warming” as more dangerous than it really is. Sounds like somebody’s starting to feel uncomfortable because the icecaps and Greenland ice sheets aren’t melting fast enough. Switching “warming” to “disruption” is like Chicken Little — finally realizing that everybody’s catching on — switching to crying “the ground is rising!”

Re-branding shams is standard operating procedure for this bunch. The first thing that’s usually done with a scheme that has been exposed is to fall back, re-name it, and present the same thing all over again under a different label. An example of that is ACORN switching its name to “Communities for Change” or any other number of things that didn’t sound like “ACORN.”

Unfortunately for the administration you have an electorate that is paying attention and informed these days and just aren’t going to fall for it. No wonder you have the Net Neutrality debate.

Update: Nice Deb sums it up in one sentence:

Libs wake up every morning and ask themselves, “How can we fool them, today?”

That’s about it.

…I guess we will have to win without him, won’t we?

Let’s examine his points in reverse order:

#10 He doesn’t like the voices of conservatism these days. He forgets that during those wonderful days of Buckley and Goldwater the democrats ruled. Firing line was on 35 years, 31 of them were years of Democratic house control, During Goldwater’s 30 years it was even less. Reagan never had a house majority. Liberals always respect conservatives as long as we lose. Even better when we lose gracefully

#9 Can you define what is a Nativist? Does being against Illegal immigration make one a “nativist” Is that something like Andrew Sullivan’s “Christianist” term?

#8 As for birthers I’ve hit them myself but also pointed out that the Administration loves them because it is to their advantage for them to exist. This is a very tiny fringe of the conservative movement and his inclusion of it elevates it to liberal advantage.

#7 Excuse me? Didn’t this president stress Afghanistan all during the campaign? I seem to recall him attacking the war in Iraq and elevating Afghanistan over and over again. The General who was in charge was his general, the decision to replace the general was his decision and the latest surge is his surge (and when Petraeus wins this war it will be his success and he will deserve it). Yes Bush went in first, yes Bush focused more (correctly) on Iraq but right now this war is our current president’s responsibility.

#6 Anti-science? I’m sorry but did you come out of a coma and miss the entire climategate scandal? I suggest you google “Hide the decline” or “global warming e-mails“. Let’s put it another way, other than not believing in the Global Warming Climate Change where else do we see conservatives as anti science? Oh and check this link from Glen yesterday.

#5 Yeah that horrible tea party that drew 10k in Boston in April and has energized voters. The Polls are close in NV and the Prof might have already given up but I wouldn’t be so ready to haul up the white flag. If we only listened to the MSM and the RNC about the tea parties a year ago what would conservative prospects be right now?

#4 This one is a good point. The GOP did fail to restrain spending but that is due to their unwillingness to act “conservative” Ironically it’s those tea party voters that you disrespect so that are holding republican feet to the fire and will desert those same republicans if they after winning congress decide to go back to their spending ways. (Although I would add the caveat that the war spending was and is justified, I actually think that some of the spending was to buy votes on the war from dems but that is strictly my opinion).

#3 I didn’t see the column in question am reading it now…You’ve got to be kidding. That column has gotten your knickers in a twist? It’s not much of a column but if that column is your number #3 reason to be embarrassed to be a conservative then you need a Valium quick! Update: And how many people voting conservative have even heard of these guys? Do you think the conservative movement hangs on their words? If you think so you need to get out more.

#2 You are correct that Tancredo is wrong. I wrote a post called: Let’s not get carried away making that same point. Am I embarrassed by Tancredo being wrong? Not really, so he’s wrong big deal. If the conservative movement was pushing for impeachment and running on that platform that would be a different story. But this is a mountain out of a molehill

#1 Let’s be blunt here. It is #1 that drives all the others for you. Palin Derangement Syndrome. How embarrassed must you have been that Palin almost managed to win the 2008 election for John McCain until he went along with the bailouts. How horrible that she has brought the Hoi Polloi into the political process. How terrible that she draws huge crowds and raises money hand over fist for conservatives. How horrible that she started as a mayor and rose through the ranks to a governorship, succeeded as a governor and has managed to do this without an elite university degree or the backing of the eastern elites and the inside the beltway crowd? I’m old enough to remember the elites hitting Ronald Reagan the same way.

Put it another way, what American has been more successful in the last 2 years in advancing both their personal fortunes and the fortunes of their worldview? Who has done more to advance conservatism that Sarah Palin? Who other than Rush kept fighting when the rest of the GOP wanted to run? Who had a better and more impressive record going into the 2008 election? Palin or our current president?

You want to hate Palin, you are welcome to do so. You want to be embarrassed by Palin? Feel free. You want to get a few extra hits and a popular memeorandum thread? Go wild, but don’t beat your breast about being embarrassed to be conservative these days. You sound like Braxton Bragg after Chickamauga unwilling to follow up the victory.

As I said at the start, if we have to win without you we’ll manage, but I’d just as soon win with you, because once we do win, we will need people to help keep the new congress honest on spending and you can be an important part of that.

Oh and Prof I’m not embarrassed by you from what I hear and have read in the past you are an OK guy, you just happen to be wrong today.

Update: left out the phrase “climate change” and added to point 3

Update 2: Professor Jacobson farts in their general direction.