Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts


Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
By Maxim Lott
Published December 30, 2010

A new year is around the corner, and some climate scientists and environmental activists say that means we’re one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But are we really?

FoxNews.com has compiled eight of the most egregiously mistaken predictions, and asked the predictors to reflect on what really happened.

  1. Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.”…
  2. “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer, published in “Dead Heat,” St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

I don’t know why, but Paul Ehrlich’s infamous prediction of mass famines, made in The Population Bomb, didn’t make Fox’s list.


He added, “Scientists don’t live by the opinion of Rush Limbaugh and Palin and George W. They live by the support of their colleagues, and I’ve had full support of my colleagues continuously.”

And his colleagues are just as far off base as he is. I don’t know anyone who depends on Limbaugh, Palin & George W. for their climatology, but they are at least as knowledgeable as these twerps seem to be.


Anyone with a dart board could be more accurate then these twerps.


There is something to be said for the Bible’s test of who is a false prophet and who is not.

If the Prophet says something that does not occur, he is executed as a liar and deceiver.

That would probably cut down on all the hyperbole that the left uses to indoctrinate our children and our dumber adults.


Good grief:

But Oppenheimer said that the difference between an increase of nearly one degree and an increase of two degrees was “definitely within the margin of error… I would think the scientists themselves would be happy with that prediction.”

The prediction was two degrees. Actual result was 0.7. Getting 35% of the predicted increase was “definitely within the margin of error” and a degree of accuracy that anyone should be happy about? Good thing they aren’t accountants…


Or architects … “Oops! The actual strength was 1/3 of what I predicted … how many died in the collapse?”


Or: “Oops, I measured 7 feet instead of 20…”


It would certainly solve our “government” problem. There wouldn’t be ANYONE left.