Washington Post, 7 October 2018

"The world has barely 10 years left to get climate under control, UN scientists say."

Associated Press June 3 1989 Headline. UN Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked. "A senior UN official has said that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by 2000."

The Canberra Times Sept. 1988. Maldives. "A gradual rise in average sea levels is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities."

Maldives today.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTr80q0S_mrMOyWSa3XGjTE0k81jQ:1579808176779&q=images+maldives+tourism&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWr8KJvJrnAhWMf30KHWZRCnUQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579808179081

The Guardian (who lists the story as "more than 11 years old) announced that "President Obama has four years to save the earth."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

The World Economic Forum in 2017 upped Hanson's "four years" and went for three. We have a bidding war here, folks.

http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/these-experts-say-we-have-three-years-to-save-the-planet-from-irreversible-destruction

Before Global Warming, Global Cooling.

The Guardian November 20, 1974 "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as new source of death and misery for mankind."

The Guardian. January 29, 1974 Heading. "Satellites Show New Ice Age is Coming Fast."

Science News. March 1st, 1975. "The Ice Age Cometh."

Newsweek. April 28, 1975. "There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes will portend a drastic decline in food production. The evidence in support of thee predictions has started to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with them. Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for climate change and it's effects. They propose that covering the polar ice caps with soot may prevent global cooling."

Brisbane Courier Mail, Jan 10, 1871, responding to three consecutive years of severe drought. "Every season is said to be extraordinary. Every month, the wettest, or driest, or windiest, or hottest, or coldest, ever known. Nuch observation, which should correct a tendency to exagerate, seems in the minds of some, a tendency to completely exaggerate it.

Max,

Actually the anniversary is a few days off. You started the fixed carbon BS on this day, but I didn't get involved until later. You'd been running around telling anyone who'd listen that it was all scientific and the budget was fixed at 565gt.
A few days later I'd have enough of that malarkey and wrote a post that ripped your an McKibben's assertions apart. I pointed out that the answer couldn't possible be just one value but simply had to be a range of values.

You've spent 3yrs (with a sabbatical when things got too embarrassing for you) trying to wriggle out from under that truth.

And now finally you've come to realise that indeed there is a range of answers and the range is enormous, to the point of being utterly useless.

"but it's just a downright lie if you try to display them on a flat range, like you try to!"

Well I don't to do anything with these values. I think the whole carbon budget meme is utter rubbish. Has zero validity. Any calculation where the margins of error are greater than the actual value is useless. Any calculation where the margins of error are several times greater than the actual value, is propaganda, designed to give the clueless some feeling of scholarship.

"How you can say they didn’t do the math because it’s impossible to do the math is beyond me, and quite juvenile."

See you still don't get it. Its possible to do the maths but impossible to do the maths and come up with a single figure which you asserted and apparently are still asserting.

" It’s going to run out one day ANYWAY!"
Nup. We've never, ever run out of a resource. Remember peak oil?

President Trump telling the children to calm down:

"The president also had some advice for the crybabies and selfish children who disdain to be pleased. Cheerfulness is better than pouting, he noted, recommending that we ‘reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse.’

‘They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers…they predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 1970s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong and unyielding bastion of freedom.’

But I suspect the climate hysterics won't understand. They actually crave the apocalypse.

MHAZE,
What does the range mean? It’s not hard and can be answered with a number of proverbs.
“A stitch in time saves nine” or
“Make hay while the sun shines” or
the Scouts Motto “Be prepared” all come to mind.

The climate motto from these numbers?
“Wean off fossil fuels while you still can.”

The 66% probability is a baseline scenario they gave as a rough target while admitting the CS science is still being clarified. The Climate Sensitivity ranges will hopefully run our way, but NASA said they’re “right skewed” and that it’s more likely to be bad than good. But I can imagine scenarios where one goes bad and another goes good and they sort of cancel each other out, leaving us with the 66% probability of having about 12 years left. If the CS ranges turn out to be far more resilient than currently estimated and all goes well, we've got maybe double the time, about 24.

But what if it goes bad? What if (as NASA and many others fear) the CS is so sensitive all those range numbers swing against us? That would mean we’re ALREADY over our carbon budget, as the 350.org movement says.

So the main take away from all this is don’t gamble with the climate! Don’t gamble with the fate of civilisation! GET OFF THE FOSSIL FUELS because they REALLY ARE FINITE and WILL RUN OUT ONE DAY ANYWAY!

Oh, and peak oil is oil geology 101. Go study the history of any given oil field. The IEAE says CONVENTIONAL oil has already peaked back in 2006, and now we are staring down the barrel of a peak in non-conventional oils sometime in the next 20 or so years. But again, the main point is it’s finite. It will peak and decline.

And the actual climate science says we can’t afford to burn the remaining oil, let alone the gas and coal.

Your lack of respect for science and high opinion of your own ‘anti-science’ arguments really reminds me of Young Earth Creationist arguments. You should feel ashamed.

Hi LEGO,
IF I'm going to discuss this with you I want to know whether you are a sceptic or a full blown climate Denier? I was a sceptic years ago as a certain 'documentary' raised all sorts of questions for me. But I investigated and found I had been lied to. I changed my mind. Are you open to learning anything if I find convincing sources? Some people are stuck in so much Denial Dogma they just rotate through their objections like someone firing artillery shells into enemy territory. They fire Objection 1, and while others answer with peer-reviewed sources, the answers are being ignored as the Denier loads Objection 2. Fire 2! As people answer, there's mute dumb silence from the Denier as they load Objection 3. The Denier is not even READING the replies! If you go long enough through their list, you'll probably end up back at Objection 1. They're now rotating! I've found that Deniers don't debate, they rotate.

I'm just wondering if that's what's happening here?

We were talking about one of your false 'failed climate predictions' jabs last time, and you mentioned skiing. I think you are so distracted by deep paleoclimate history and Milankovitch cycles that you forgot to get back to me on what you learned about the trend for snow and snowfields, especially what's happening in American snowfields.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364764

Hi Max. So, you are impartial one who was convinced through reasoned argument, while I am just a "denier" who will not even look at my opponents arguments? Gee, that sounds funny from you. How may times have I posted up the graphs which were the ones which made me realise which side was more truthful, and you flatly refused to even look at them? Your mind is made up and you are not going to let your opponents facts get in the way of your ideology.

When I submitted a dozen quotes informing our readers of the stupid predictions of impending doom by climate scientists, instead of simply conceding the indisputable point which was essentially true, and you knew it, you and your friend Steelie did a misdirection and nit picked my statements, and demanded I verify everything. As an experienced debater, I recognise that such tactics are the ploys of an opponent who will not debate in good faith.

My position is, that I know that the climate is changing and I think I know why. It is a perfectly natural event like the changing of the tides. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and I don't think that we can just keep pumping it into the atmosphere without it making our natural warming cycle worse. Maybe a lot worse. But your side has taken the extreme position that all global warming can only be caused by CO2 emissions, and I won't have a bar of that. It is totally illogical and can only be countenanced by people who simply do not want to believe that there could be any other explanation. And when presented historical evidence, refuse to even look at it.

I think I know what you are up to. You want to swamp me with "scientific" research papers which prove your point. But I won't fall for that. I prefer to argue my case from another aspect, and I think that my arguments are more convincing than yours. If you can make your audience laugh at your opponent, you have them beat.