No I am sure it was the United Nations proclaiming 50 million climate refugees by 2010.
Does Paul Ehrlich qualify as a Global Warming Scientist? he is my favourite.
Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich
Claims: In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world. (Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.) New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled “In Praise of Prophets.”
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
The UNEP even provided a handy map. Once this prediction was pointed out how foolish it was, they disappeared the map.
Actually the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When there was not one proven climate refugee they thought "Well, people that believe in CAGW will swallow anything so let's just tell them there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2020 instead."
http://phys.org/news/2011-02-million-env...
When 2020 comes and goes with no climate refugees the UN will just move the date to scare the idiots again.The idiots are so dissociated from reality that the UN could just repeat this "prediction" over and over for decades and the idiots would still believe them.
Here is a good place to look
http://www.skepticalscience.com/misinfor...
But, here's one by Fred Singer
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1500-yea...
One obvious flaw in his claim is that it is 500 years too early to for both modern warming and the Medieval Warm Period to be part of the same 1500 year cycle. Perhaps we can expect natural warming at the end of the 25th Century.
The ability to 'predict' depends on data. The more data, the more likely a prediction will come to pass. 50 years ago when I was a US navy meteorologist our crew would collect data from several thousands of reporting stations all over the world and ships at sea. By plotting these stations on a map the positions of fronts and highs and lows could be observed. Other data from radiosonde upper atmosphere readings could then be added to the observed data and a forecast was made. Generally we were 95%, 95% of the time out to 12 hours. Forecasts out to 96 hours fell to 75%. Today with satellite data, better instruments far more past history and more rapid collection, forecasts are a lot better. I suspect that 50 years before my time forecasts were far more primitive.
The point here is that folks that made 'predictions' fifty years ago concerning climate had only meager data to work with. They were mostly wrong. Folks 25 years ago had much more data. They were closer to being right. People working in the field today are way ahead of anyone in the past. The data available today makes the predictions far more realistic and far more accurate. The data keeps building up. At this point the accumulated data points to a rapid, in historical terms, climate change situation driven by a massive accumulation of man made CO2 in our paper thin atmosphere. Are these predictions 100%? No. But back when I was writing weather forecasts based on the data available I had full confidence that when I did a weather brief for combat flights I knew to a 95% certainty that the men I briefed wouldn't run into weather bad enough to compromise their mission, and they barring anti aircraft fire they would all return safely.
The data we have now on climate change is no different. We're sending our entire nation into the future with the best forecast we can muster. it may not be 100%, but it's close enough. Not believing the data, the science and the physics of atmosphere and heat is plain foolish. Don't believe the 'deniers'.... the data isn't on their side.
My vote goes to any and all the hysterical alarmists who predicted a "tipping point." In particular:
"UN official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba in 1982, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
Even before the IPCC, the UN was trying to scare us into action. Devastation as complete as a nuclear holocaust by the year 2000.
Come on man, give me best answer. I think I have earned it.
The most incorrect claim made by climate scientists was that people would listen to them.
Al Gore's flooding illustration in his "Inconvenient Truth" Sci-Fi thriller was pretty spectacular and not even close to coming to fruition. I would say that it was the worst simply because it was a high-profile Sci-Fi movie that got him a National Academy of Science Award and a Nobel Prize. I wonder if he still uses that clip in his Climate Science Church forum?
Al Gore seems to think he is a climate scientist, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
There were so many I couldn't decide so I cheated and looked
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/th...
Here was one that was pretty good.
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000
I guess none of those guys are considered scientists by Gringo and I tend to agree with him there. They aren't scientists. They are socialists.
What would you vote for as the most incorrect prediction made my a global warming scientist?
Ha ha Gringo, you're such a joker lol
And you guys wonder why you are labelled deniers?
And this little gem is from a guy who is on record as agreeing with the statement by Tim Flannery that ''waves would soon be lapping over 8 story buildings'' ha ha you guys are just so hilarious lol .
And you guys wonder why you're described as alarmists.
Boy, that is a tough one. Not only are there so many but it is hard for sane people to dive that deep in lunacy. I would like to say, "If you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor." But you might correctly say it is in the wrong category. So I'll go with.
Quote by Noel Brown, UN official: "Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos."
i believe the worst and most incorrect , is that temps will go up 3 degrees by 2100 . i believe it will be closer to 100 degrees F within the next 30 years .
I see you continue the false claim that a scientist said that 'by 2010 snow would be a very rare and exciting event' even though you have been confronted with the factual statement (including links to the original source) many times. And in similar fashion Sagebrush continues posting his infamous 'quote by Noel Brown' when in fact he is quoting a reporter.
And you guys wonder why you are labelled deniers?
The poles would be ice free by last year.
How many more billions do we need to waste on that incompetent group that can't get anything right in their predictions.
Thy would be the ones you make
