Ice Free Arctic Forecasts


The Argus  Saturday 17 July 1954

ScreenHunter_1096 Dec. 30 18.58


17 Jul 1954 – The Argus – p2

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

ScreenHunter_447 May. 23 05.48

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013?

the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013

– John Kerry, US Secretary of State

John Kerry: We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change

Because climate change in the Arctic region is occurring faster and to a greater extent than anywhere else, the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free for a short period of time as early as the summer of 2015, according to the 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report completed by the eight Arctic Council Nations.

MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008
Polar ice cap melting away in 2008 ?

The latest salvo comes courtesy of Xinhua, which reports that Olav Orheim, the head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, is placing his money on this summer. Noting that its ice sheet had reached a historical low of 3m sq. km last summer – it covered around 7.5m sq. km as recently as 2000 – Orheim told Xinhua that “if Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away.” Barring this disaster, Orheim predicted that excess carbon dioxide emissions and higher average temperatures would unpredictably alter the region’s fragile ecosystems. On a separate note, he said that Asia would likely be hardest hit by rising sea levels, estimating that a one meter rise would affect “nearly 100 million people on an area of 800,000 square km in Asia and direct economic loss will amount to 400 billion U.S. dollars.”

December 15, 2009

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

Global warming is a direct threat to biodiversity in all corners of the world, but nowhere are its effects more visible than in the Arctic, where the impacts of the climate crisis are hitting earlier and with greater intensity than anywhere else. Winter temperatures have increased by almost 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1949. And by the end of this century, the Far North’s annual average temperatures are expected to rise 9 degrees or more over land and up to 13 degrees over water.

We can see the frightening effects of the Arctic’s rising temperatures in the quick and devastating melt of the region’s sea ice. In 2008, Arctic summer sea ice reached the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era — and winter sea ice reached its lowest recorded extent in 2011. Now climate scientists say the Arctic could be completely ice free in the summer by 2012.

With its unforgiving winds, tremendous cold, winters that never see the sun, and summers that never see the end of it, the Arctic seems like a hard place to eke out a living. Yet it’s home to highly specialized species that have evolved to make the most of their harsh environment, including its vast expanses of sea ice. Without enough sea ice, the entire Arctic ecosystem will unravel and its species will die.


the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 – “plus or minus three years”.


There are credible scientists who are now predicting an ice-free (summer) arctic by as early as 2013. The implications are mind boggling. The impact on wildlife, humans and the rest of the world’s weather patterns is impossible to predict for specific areas and to exact detail.


62 Responses to Ice Free Arctic Forecasts

  1. Glacierman says:

    I guess Julliene is taking the champayne of ice and starting the celebration. NSIDC has announced a new record low extent.

  2. Glacierman says:

    Interesting post from Julliene at WUWT:

    “Julienne Stroeve says:

    August 27, 2012 at 10:11 am

    BillD, we have a new paper just published:

    This paper compares the next round of climate models with the observations. They better represent the mean state of the ice cover than the models in 2007 IPCC report, and they also generally simulate faster rates of decline, though many are still slower than observed. Interestingly though is that the uncertainty as to when an ice-free Arctic may be realized remains about the same in the earlier models.”

    • R. de Haan says:

      It’s all bull shit. The Arctic will become ice free (in summer) when it get’s hot meaning an active sun like we had during the recorded warmth periods. The reality however is that we are in a long period of cooling. The Mesozoic Warmth Period for example was warmer compared to the Roman Warmth Period and the Roman Warmth Period was warmer than the Medieval Warmth Period, in short, we’re on a gliding scale and no climate model can predict jack shit as long as we’re not even able to predict the weather correctly. So Glacierman, don’t waste your time on BS reports.

      • Donald Chilo says: Haan ,

        Your blanket dismissal of the model consensus appears based on your judgement that these models do not predict daily weather to your satisfaction. Climate models are not so much for predicting daily weather as they are for predicting general trends. While we may be in a very long, slow cooling trend, the shorter term still indicates warming in spite of this possible longer term cycle. There are many cycles occurring simultaneously superimposing themselves on each other creating irregularities in the pattern. Please inform us, and the ice predictors what we need to do in order to be more accurate. Stating something as “all bullshit” does nothing to help explain a problem or give you credibility.

        • Bill Henderson says:

          Am I still allowed to fart?

        • ProveIT says:

          It’s becoming harder and harder to make the Climate Model sell. The reason they are failing is that we do NOT understand the Earth and all it’s processes and will not for some considerable time. I never believed in the models for one reason and one reason only. Humans rarely if ever get it right when first trying to understand complex science. It only takes a little effort in historical knowledge to put yourself on the side of probability. The main driver behind radical conclusions we see today is ego. People think they are better than they are in reality. They know more, their data doesn’t stink. It’s so predictable it’s laughable.

        • Mark McGuire says:

          Quote Donald Chido: “Please inform us, and the ice predictors what we need to do in order to be more accurate.”
          As ‘your’ models can predict future weather & ice 100 years in advance IF action on carbon(sic) is undertaken, then can you inform us of future extreme weather that has been thwarted/averted.
          You know it makes sense. If you can predict the future, you can predict it all, not just ‘future melting ice/extreme weather’, but ‘goldilocks’ climate as well.

          Just 6 months out, just one extreme event like ‘Sandy’ that has been averted.
          That would be a good KPI.
          Australia has had the world’s most expensive carbon(sic) tax for 3 years.
          Name the cyclone that has been averted.
          Throw in the lotto numbers, and you have won me.

        • aaron says:

          Dumb ass. Look at the the sun or Mars, I guess we caused all that “radical” “climate change” from all the way from here. Why are the beaches white on the north west shores of the gulf of mexico? I hate pollution, but not as much as liers.

      • Vanderbrock says:

        In 2007, Russia used a mini-submarine to plant the country’s flag on the floor of the Arctic Ocean (everyone knows that the arctic is just a floating ice cap, right?) in an attempt to claim the region and its natural resources, although contested by the UN, gives a different perspective that many other Arctic bordering countries are not bound to U.S. political opinions and believe the likely trend that the northern ice cap is going to melt in the EARLY half of this millennial, it will become navigable and habitable for at least oil extraction, and maybe a good old-fashion sea war or two. The non-partisan satellites have shown us that the ice cap reduced 40 % in just 2007, and that the polar bear is being impacted torturously is not BS ( it is believed that the Polar Bears live on the ice and not in the water). There will always be those that believe that NOAA, USGS, NASA, US NAVY, countless other organizations, Universities and scores of countries including Russia, Canada and Greenland are liberal mouth pieces in conspiracy and upload farcical images to National Geographic when they are not looking. A person may want to get out of Miami before the sea rises and take “Arctic Engineering” from the University of Alaska at Anchorage on-line. I too was once close minded.
        Taking it to a higher lever, if all the CO2 and greenhouse (them) gases were suddenly removed from the atmosphere, the earth would actually receive additional radiation from the sun and “heat up” the earth at a rate greater than without them (“Perma-frost – the tipping time bomb,” UAA, 2012. Listen to the one student’s very soft comment at the end!). But no scientists believe more gases are better for the cycle we are in because they absorb heat instead of releasing it to outer space. So that is the scientific geo-earth noose; some species may get squeezed out, but the earth is in a cycle of change. For me, I don’t use the BS card with any scientist: I read, I take classes, I research, I listen objectively. AND,
        I swear to god that he didn’t put mankind on this earth to be whipped out from a 100 year anomaly, but pray that he designed the earth to be resilient and adjust to the 100-10,000 year swings without looking like the “day after.”

    • I listen to anything Julienne Stroeve says because I like to watch her lips move and she’s really easy on the eyes.

    • markpro3ger says:

      my guess is that at the end of this melt season (2014) there will not be near as much rejoicing from the Warmists….but only time will tell. It has certainly been an interesting 2 weeks with very little melt, but now we should head into some significant melting.

  3. slimething says:

    If you make a prediction and it is wrong, then you redo your prediction and hindcast the last prediction so that your model is correct, is that the definition of predictive skill?

    • aaron says:

      Your right, it is better to control EVERY thing the “people’s citizen” does. Ie:where you work/live,what foods you eat ,when is it socially exceptable to have a natural family when its not, a possible link to terror or disease, a mandate for tax or to seize private property or……a link to communism?

  4. nobbly says:

    So are people here denying the rate of decrease in summer arctic extent or what? You can’t account for it by solar radiation.Solar activity peaked in the 1980s – well know fact. All the predictions are for decreased ice extent and that what is being observed. Duh.

  5. Too lazy to translate myself, so used google translate.. I hope you can figure out what it all about:


    [email protected]
    Neodim Kollobok

    K seredine XXI veka na Zemle vsledstviye sushchestvennogo umen’sheniya polnogo potoka solnechnogo izlucheniya proizoydet global’noye ponizheniye temperatury do sostoyaniya glubokogo pokholodaniya. Takoye mneniye vyskazal sotrudnik Glavnoy (Pulkovskoy) astronomicheskoy observatorii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk (RAN) Khabibullo Abdusamatov. “Global’noye ponizheniye temperatury uzhe nablyudalos’ vo vsey Yevrope, v Severnoy Amerike i Grenlandii vo vremya maunderovskogo minimuma solnechnoy aktivnosti v 1645-1705 godakh. V Gollandii togda zamerzli vse kanaly, a v Grenlandii vsledstviye nastupleniya lednikov lyudi byli vynuzhdeny ostavit’ chast’ poseleniy”, – rasskazal uchenyy, dobaviv, chto v seredine XXI veka ozhidayetsya podobnoye global’noye snizheniye temperatury. “Global’noye ponizheniye temperatury uzhe nablyudalos’ vo vsey Yevrope, v Severnoy Amerike i Grenlandii vo vremya maunderovskogo minimuma solnechnoy aktivnosti v 1645-1705 godakh. V Gollandii togda zamerzli vse kanaly, a v Grenlandii vsledstviye nastupleniya lednikov lyudi byli vynuzhdeny ostavit’ chast’ poseleniy”, – rasskazal uchenyy, dobaviv, chto v seredine XXI veka ozhidayetsya podobnoye global’noye snizheniye temperatury. Abdusamatov napomnil, chto dolgovremennoye parallel’noye izmeneniye variatsiy 11-letnikh i vekovykh kolebaniy solnechnoy svetimosti okazyvayet neposredstvennoye vliyaniye na izmeneniye klimaticheskikh usloviy na Zemle. Analiz etikh kolebaniy pokazal, chto v nastoyashcheye vremya Zemlya uzhe dostigla stadii maksimuma global’nogo potepleniya. Daleye, v sootvetstvii s ozhidayemym dal’neyshim parallel’nym spadom solnechnogo izlucheniya, nastupit medlennoye ponizheniye global’noy temperatury Zemli. “Naiboleye sushchestvennym sobytiyem KHKH veka v zhizni Solntsa bylo v tselom postepennoye povysheniye kolichestva izluchayemoy im energii, i kak sledstviye – nablyudayemoye global’noye potepleniye klimata, chto yavlyayetsya ryadovym (a ne anomal’nym) sobytiyem v zhizni Zemli, poskol’ku global’nyye potepleniya, analogichnyye sovremennomu, a takzhe i global’nyye pokholodaniya, nablyudalis’ i raneye”, – otmetil on. Po yego mneniyu, nachala ponizheniya global’noy temperatury Zemli mozhno ozhidat’ v 2012-2013 godu. V 2035-2045 godu solnechnaya svetimost’ dostignet minimuma, a vsled za etim s otstavaniyem na 15-20 let nastupit ocherednoy klimaticheskiy minimum – glubokoye pokholodaniye klimata Zemli.
    By the middle of the XXI century on Earth due to a substantial reduction of the total flux of solar radiation will cause a global temperature drop to a state of deep cooling. This opinion was expressed Officer Main (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) Habibullo Abdusamatov.

    “Global temperature decrease has been observed in all of Europe, North America and Greenland during the Maunder minimum of solar activity in the years 1645-1705. In Holland then froze all the channels, and in Greenland as a result of ice-age people were forced to leave some of the settlements” – said scientist, adding that in the middle of the XXI century will like global temperature reduction.

    “Global temperature decrease has been observed in all of Europe, North America and Greenland during the Maunder minimum of solar activity in the years 1645-1705. In Holland then froze all the channels, and in Greenland as a result of ice-age people were forced to leave some of the settlements” – said scientist, adding that in the middle of the XXI century will like global temperature reduction.

    Abdusamatov recalled that the long-term variations of the parallel change in 11-year and secular oscillations of the solar luminosity has a direct impact on climate change on Earth. Analysis of these oscillations showed that at the present time the Earth has already reached the stage of maximum global warming. Further, in accordance with the expected further decline in parallel solar radiation occurs slowly lowering the global temperature of the Earth.

    “The most significant event of the twentieth century in the life of the Sun, it was generally a gradual increase in the amount of energy emitted by them, and as a consequence – the observed global warming, which is the ordinary (but not abnormal) event in the life of the Earth, as global warming, similar to the contemporary, as well as and global cooling that occurred in the past, “- he said.

    According to him, the beginning of lowering global temperature can be expected in 2012-2013. In 2035-2045, the solar luminosity reaches a minimum, and after that, with a lag of 15-20 years will come at least once climate – deep cooling of the climate of the Earth.

  6. climatebeagle says:

    Paul Beckwith:

    “Within a year or two or three there will be no sea-ice cover on the Arctic Ocean in September for the first time in about 3 million years. Within a decade or two the Arctic Ocean will be ice-free all-year round.”

    Posted in May 2013, so not sure if his outer limit for ice free September is 2015 or 2016.

    • Al Gore said the ice would be gone by 2013 or 2014 when he accepted the Nobel prize.

      • Ben says:

        Walt Meier said the Arctic has been ice free, and warmer, in the recent geologic past (5,000 to 15,000 years)

        “First, we know the Arctic can potentially lose all its sea ice during summer because it has done so in the past. Examination of several proxy records (e.g., sediment cores) of sea ice indicate ice-free or near ice-free summer conditions for at least some time during the period of 15,000 to 5,000 years ago (Polyak et al., 2010) when Arctic temperatures were not much warmer than today.”

      • annie says:

        He actually said:

        “Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years”.

        The words “could” and “will” are not synonymous in standard English, though maybe in Goddardspeak they are.

      • Dan says:

        picking on AG …… remember how his selection of dress shirts show his pit sweat ….. I am sure this is what causes him to make such over the top forecasting claims !

      • Avery Davis says:


        He said this:

        “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

        He didn’t “go down in flames”, either. If anybody misinterpreted this at the front-end, then they have very poor verbal comprehension skills. He made NO predictions.

    • Andyj says:

      The four previous inter glacials were between 1 and 4C warmer than this interglacial.
      Made worse by the uncomfortable fact this interglacial was much warmer than now.

      Seems we are 7C cooler than before. The Arctic sea ice almost certainly disappeared a mere 3,500 ears ago.

  7. Kay Rowell says:

    Whatever, the fact remains that man has not been careful in his management of this earth and many benefits occur when less emissions of carbon are poured into the atmosphere. Some of you believe that everything scientific researchers have come up with is bullshit as you say. I think you are so full of bullshit that it just naturally spills out of your mouths!!!!!

    • Getting rid of fossil fuels would kill most of the world’s population, which would make greens very happy.

      • T Zhou says:

        People that want to control other people are very happy to kill off people.. for the good of the cause of the week. I read a book about Mao and the 70 to 90 million people that died because of his relentless pursuit of power. AGW is not much different in its goals. One question to ask yourself is ‘who would benefit?’ if we suddenly stopped using fossil fuels. It has been well below freezing for the last 6 days here in Colorado. What exactly do they think I’m going to heat the house with? The answer is the AGW people say is, don’t heat the house freeze to death.
        I will admit it is difficult to argue with AGW, not on scientific grounds they loose hands down, AGW is so flawed riddled with possible fraud (some would say out right) that you really have to understand where they are going before you can effectively counter their arguments. As I understand the current balance of things, not one prediction the AGW has made has been borne out. If you were a scientist in any field, who would believe you? If you were a chemist with that kind of track record, what would you be called?
        In studying Mars, which seems to have had water which now doesn’t, Nasa recently sent a satellite, Maven I believe, to measure the effect that the magnetic field had, or is having on the atmosphere of Mars. It is thought that solar radiation has slowly stripped away the atmosphere and water. Venus which according to planetary scientists has had water also is gone. Neither Venus or Mars has a magnetic field. I bring up Venus because it is the poster child for runaway greenhouse effect. So the question becomes, why hasn’t solar radiation stripped away the atmosphere of Venus?
        AGW’s salient point is that heat, when released in the upper atmosphere is returned. Either AGW doesn’t know, don’t want to know, or don’t have a concept of the electro magnetic spectrum. There is a reason that phone companies prefer fiber optic than electrical. The spectrum they use is all in the infra red range. Interesting isn’t it? Did the refractive index of the atmosphere change with the induction of co2?
        AGW doesn’t know squat. Revisionist history, rewriting predictions, and the ever present, if you bring it up its weather (like freezing temps or snowgedon), to be expected, not climate, if they bring up a drought (who would ever think the western part of the US ever suffers from drought) its proof. Anybody notice the extreme drought isn’t mentioned much anymore? And certainly AGW isn’t about to announce that the artic has recovered nearly 900,000 square miles of ice… in August? Explain that AGW?

    • R. Shearer says:

      Do you mean carbon, such as soot, or carbon dioxide?

    • They say carbon instead of carbon dioxide on purpose. It’s part of the calculated PR plan. Carbon is dirty. Carbon dioxide is an odorless invisible gas. They deliberately say carbon, and when I correct them and say carbon dioxide they look nothing but stupid.

    • Scott says:

      Wow, what a statement … While I would agree that man has not been as careful managing the earth as he could, there is NO evidence that less emissions of carbon dioxide create “many benefits”. When you say carbon, you do mean carbon dioxide, right?

    • Andyj says:

      Nice hat. Plastic?

    • david spencer says:

      “I think you are so full of bullshit that it just naturally spills out of your mouths!!!!!” Here we have one of the classic simple defense tactics a hustler has in their meager tool box of the trade. “projection”. I used to call it mirroring but that is because I was experiencing it from the “mark’s” prospective and pictured myself holding a mirror in front of my face for the hustler to focus their accusations on. Anyhow, what the commenter describes “you” as is in fact a precise description of herself.

      • kentclizbe says:

        Politically Correct Progressives imbibe the tactics of covert influence through all their interactions within their group–from their local meetings of Environmental Action groups to their TV shows, like Colbert and Stewart.

        That’s why they all sound the same.

        What you’re describing is a common indicator of covert influence operators who have been exposes. It’s known as ANDEMCA: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.

        The PC-Prog frothing-at-the-mouth babbler above is practicing the tell-tale ANDEMCA.

        They are far beyond logic. Much like a rabid dog, there is virtually no hope for them.

    • manage the earth. now that is bullshit1

  8. bit chilly says:

    i am getting sick and tired of people like donald chilo that refuse to accept hard observational FACTS. ALL climate models have failed spectacularly to predict anything.based on these failed models incorrect predictions every fuel bill in the uk now has a 15% surcharge to pay for useless “green” energy. all the while installing diesel generators as back up for our inability to invest in meaningful power generation. people all over the world are being placed in fuel poverty due to rising energy costs and people will DIE chasing these ill thought out policies.

    donald,realising after 15 years your models are all garbage,then rejigging your data input to try and fit some imaginary trend from a chaotic weather system is beyond the comprehension of most sensible people. climate scientists are now obsessed with proving something that is not happening,purely as a face saving measure as the earths climate is now making fools of them ALL.
    my estimation of the entire science community in every field has diminished to near zero as i read of more and more pseudo science being passed off as accepted fact.

  9. bit chilly says:

    kay.there is no doubt humans have a poor track record when it comes to pollution.thankfully these days widespread deliberate pollution in the western world has been virtually eradicated.however there are many areas in the world where important forest areas have been subject to slash and burn policy,driven by the very same GREEN policy you support. these forests have been removed to clear areas for palm oil production,which is used in bio diesel amongst many other items in daily use.hardly environmentally friendly.
    there still appears to be widespread pollution in many areas of china from chemical waste.

    so yes there are plenty areas where there should be concentrated improvement on how we treat the planet.
    but the simple fact remains,there will be NO catastrophic effects of a slight rise in temperature. co2 levels rise as a result of temperature increases,not the other way around.billions have been spent on research into something that is NOT a problem.this money could have been better spent on real environmentally friendly investment,investment in real power generation for the future instead of fanciful ideas like wind and solar power,which are building up huge problems for the future.
    by the time all these wind farms and solar farms reach the end of their life (without ANY meaningful contribution to energy production) the companies that own them will ALL be out of business,leaving the worlds tax payers with further environmental problems to pay for in the decommisioning.
    look at the FACTS,dont believe the hype from either side of the 50 years the result of the great global warming mistake will be devastating for the advancement of science and academia.that along with millions of death as a result of fuel poverty will the legacy of eternal shame for the climate “science” community

  10. Jim Steele says:

    Antarctic sea ice is better indicator of climate change. Arctic sea ice uniquely affected by too many confounding factors–climate-change-indicator.html

  11. Lenny says:

    In Australia, our Agenda 21 plan has dictated that the South Australian dairy industry must be abolished on the totally spurious grounds of “sustainability” (it’s now almost totally abolished: google Ann Bressington, the South Australian MP, for all the fine details) because cows fart methane gas and this causes global warming.

    At the same time 63% of the Australian land mass is to be devoted to coal seam gas fields (fracking in other words) and thousands upon thousands of CSG fields have been drilled already, virtually turning the Sunshine Coast into an industrial wasteland.

    Yet the CSG industry generates infinitely more times the methane gas than cows, destroying the air, water and soil of the beautiful Queensland hinterlands, again all according to the UN Agenda 21 blueprint.

    So on the one hand cows are bad (bad methane) but fracking is simply fabulous (good methane).

    Anyone who still believes this global warming fairy tale, then please do explain it to the rest of us…

  12. JC says:

    “Now don’t talk to me about the polar bear
    Don’t talk to me about the ozone layer
    Ain’t so much of anything these days, even the air
    They’re running out of rhinos – what do I care?

    Let’s hear it for the dolphin – let’s hear it for the trees
    Ain’t runnin’ out of nothin’ in my deep freeze”

    (C) Mark Knopfler – “My Parties”

  13. rebecca rhodes says:

    Farmers Almanac — (Winter 2013-14 prediction) Severe cold and above average snowfall
    NOAA (Winter 2013-14 prediction) Above average temperatures, dry winter
    Reality — record number of days below ZERO, record or near record snowfalls totals
    Farmers Almanac — 1
    NOAA — ZERO so much for our “accurate scientific” models!!!!!!

  14. Jeff says:
    arctic sea ice close to record lows for this time of year.

    • bit chilly says:

      funny how when the extent increases warmists talk about mass ,and when the mass increases they talk about extent.

  15. Adam Gallon says:

    Russia preparing for an “Ice-free Arctic”?
    Preparing by building more Icebreakers!

  16. John JJS says:

    The ice may melt but it may not. It may get warmer or the trend may be toward a cooler climate. Sea level rise could devastate coastal cities or it may slow and nothing much will happen.
    Dispute these predictions and feel Annie’s wrath.

    Using the words “may” or “could happen” is a joke. If you don’t have the cojones to stand by your prediction then why bother making it?
    I predicted in 1990 that 99% of the global warming doom and gloom predictions would prove to be BS.Missed it by 1%

  17. david spencer says:

    I love these examples of historical and modern projections gone awry. Why? Because I hate people who want to harm me personally (as well as millions of others). Not only that but I hate how they expect me to conform and accept it like the minion I am. If I don’t, they get angry. They want me to suffer without complaint so that they can administer their venom and all the while see themselves as angels. So I love when that nasty thing called “reality” throws egg on the face of the low life, hustling, arrogant, parasites of doom.

  18. aaron says:

    Your right, it is better to control EVERY thing the “people’s citizen” does. Ie:where you work/live,what foods you eat ,when is it socially exceptable to have a natural family when its not, a possible link to terror or disease, a mandate for tax or to seize private property or……a link to communism?

  19. jlr0nning says:

    Once you understand that climate alarmism is a cold war sequel (leftists still trying to bring us down), everything becomes clear

  20. Andrew M. says:

    Hi Tony, I have just realised this page would have been the proper place to leave this comment:
    You could add Greenpeace to the list, but it’s possible they were just repeating Maslowski’s projection from December 2007, which you have listed in the BBC article above “Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013? “.

  21. kyle says:

    Hey everyone, I’m from the future 😀 How’s that global warming working out for u guys? XD lol

  22. Barbara says:

    This post and the comments just came to my attention. Well worth a read! AGW is just as much joke, fraud, anti-human, anti- science today near the end of 2015 as it was two years ago. It just sickens me. The cost, waste, harm to us all is painful!

  23. And this is why the so-called experts tend to consistently get it all wrong these days….

    • Andrew Troup says:

      The guy who wrote this is also writing articles like “How junk food can end obesity”, full of poorly understood or regurgitated opinions. Sample:
      “To be sure, many of Big Food’s most popular products are loaded with appalling amounts of fat and sugar and other problem carbs”

      Now I don’t THINK he imagines fat is a “problem carb” but his sloppy writing makes it hard to be sure what he believes. He certainly suffers from two dinosaur holdover beliefs: that calorie counting is both necessary and sufficient to prevent weight gain, and that dietary fats are necessarily bad.

      The point about science is not that it’s right. It’s never right, in the sense of infallible.
      It is nothing more than a collection of conjectures which have not yet been abandoned.
      But it’s FAR better than any of the alternatives, especially when dealing with deeply counterintuitive areas where cause and effect are difficult to unravel.

      And the further it gets from the funding and influence of the big commercial lobbies like oil, pharma and food, the less likely it is to put us crook. A big part of the reason for the disastrous “low fat, high sugar” era we are just coming out of was the influence of a single person in the 1980s, whose message suited the food industry. Without knowing the exact mechanism, they knew that increasing sugar content of foods caused loss of control of appetite. That’s why ‘savory’ foods like peanut butter and bread have been getting steadily sweeter for decades.
      And the effect in question is not because it’s sugar, it’s because it’s sweet.
      Sweeteners, whether natural or artificial, are just as damaging to appetite control as sugar is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *