Anybody Want to Guess the Prediction from UN Global Warming Alarmists from 30 Years Ago?

[GK4Herd]

In the second article by Conrad Black with in National Review the thing that first grabs me is this from his wiki page...

“Black was convicted on four counts in U.S. District Court in Chicago on 13 July 2007. He was sentenced to serve 6½ years in federal prison and to pay Hollinger $6.1 million, in addition to a fine of US$125,000. Appeals resulted in two of Black's three criminal fraud charges being vacated, and his conviction for obstruction of justice was upheld. Black was initially found guilty of diverting funds for personal benefit from money due to Hollinger International, and of other irregularities. The alleged embezzlement occurred when the company sold certain publishing assets. He was also found guilty of one charge of obstruction of justice.[55]”


But let’s look past the fact that he’s a criminal and delve into his criticism of Hansen in the article. This study Hansen 1988) has been the subject of much scrutiny. Skeptical Science does a good job of explaining the study and it’s controversy. Noted that only one of the three scenarios were off on their predictions. The third was determined that his used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity factor. It is noted that when corrected it lines the projection with actual observation. And the good news is the corrected parameters is in use by the IPCC...

“In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity. His results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC.”

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

 

[GK4Herd]

Ok...now that we’ve covered the article from the ExxonMobil linked organization and the convicted felon, let’s move onto the third article by the Institute for Energy Research ...


From Wiki...

“The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization registered by Charles G. Koch and Robert L. Bradley Jr., advocates positions on environmental issues including deregulation of utilities, climate change denial, and claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless.”


We know where Koch’s alliances lie so let’s focus on Bradley. Bradley worked for Chevron for over 16 years as Director of Policy Analysis. Among many others, he did work for the Cato Institute as well as other oil friendly and funded think tanks.

From Desmog..

“IER’s President Thomas J. Pyle previously worked as a lobbyist for Koch Industries, while IER’s CEORobert L. Bradley was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron, where he served as speechwriter for Enron CEO Kenneth Lay.”


Among conservative think tanks, IER receives funding from ExxonMobil, American Energy Alliance, American Petroleum Institute, and the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation. IER has a history of fighting everything that appears to be a threat to the oil industry and have a record of distorting facts regarding green energy sources such as wind wind and solar as well as the production of electric vehicles.

 

[ThunderCat98]

Here's my question: did the scientists in the studies quoted in those articles make those claims/statements or not? You've presented no evidence that these folks didn't make those predictions - none of which have come true, btw. Instead, you've spent three posts attacking the sources that listed these false predictions. Sooooo, the question remains - did they make those statements/predictions or not? If they did, you can't say BC's article is an "outlier" as you've claimed. How about algore's prediction that sea levels would rise 20 feet? Was that an outlier too? I realize legit climate science keeps trying to distance itself from crap like this after it is be proved false, but you libs certainly eat it up when it's initially made and spout it like gospel.