1989: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

The UN says were doomed by 2000. From an archived article from 1989.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says 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, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
......

Yep, it's a scam, perpetuated by people who want your money and subservience without being accountable to you. Same con men, same con story, same complicit media.

Science is NEVER wrong....or is it? "The worlds flat"...Oh...it's not. "The Sun revolves around the Earth"....oh...it doesn't. "Dinosaurs died off because of a volcano"...oh...no they didn't. "There's a lot of genetic difference between the races"....oh...no there's not. "Neanderthals were dumbasses"....oh...no they weren't.....the times science "got it wrong" are hysterically numerous....what is "scientifically proven" today can be easily dismissed tomorrow. Are eggs bad for you? Depends on what day of the week it is for science to decide that one.

You are mistaking manipulation of data, with science. If there was evidence of Gods existence, science would present it. If a 100 thousand year old man showed up walking on water and turning water into wine....trust me, it would be big news in both the scientific and religious communities.

You mistake "wrong" with scientific evolution. The more data, the more science learns...scientist are always trying to tweak theories.

Arguments like yours only work on those that do not understand how science works.

Who "manipulates" data? Because Progressive biased scientists would NEVER lie? The CRU email controversy never happened? The truth about sea levels rising is that it is 3mm a year (1 foot over 100 years)...and temperature rise is 1.5 degrees in 100 years...and we are supposed to be "chicken little" a scream "The sky is falling" so let's spend 93 trillion dollars on some bullshit Green New Deal and bankrupt our country? Jeeeeez.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-...ia-silent.html

You are mistaking manipulation of data, with science. If there was evidence of Gods existence, science would present it. If a 100 thousand year old man showed up walking on water and turning water into wine....trust me, it would be big news in both the scientific and religious communities. Originally Posted by WTF

Where does the "data" come from? Science? Hmmmmm.

Where does the "data" come from? Science? Hmmmmm. Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

Yes and data evolves. Think about that. More data...better science.

You are proving you know very little with how science works. Science welcomes challenges to its theories..you religious nuts on the other hand want no challenges to your God in the Heavens. You call it blasphemy. Won't hear of it. Condem those that do to eternal damnation.

You are mistaking manipulation of data, with science. If there was evidence of Gods existence, science would present it. If a 100 thousand year old man showed up walking on water and turning water into wine....trust me, it would be big news in both the scientific and religious communities. Originally Posted by WTF

It was really big in its day, and still is today...the "journal" of the day was called the Holy Bible.And it has stood the test of time.

You mistake "wrong" with scientific evolution. The more data, the more science learns...scientist are always trying to tweak theories.

Nice try...so science is "evolving"....so today's "data" is just as reliable as data from the past. If you lived in 1970...and science told you an Ice Age was on it's way...you'd believe it as much as you believe scientist today say you will be burned alive by 2050. The problem with an "evolving" truth is that the truth is ALWAYS changing.

It was really big in its day, and still is today...the "journal" of the day was called the Holy Bible.And it has stood the test of time.



Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

Which version do you ascribe? The Koran...

And it has not stood the test of time, we weren't made 2000 years ago out of a rib...

The bible is full of more shit than a Christian turkey....yet because of man's fear of death, it persist. That and they pound that shit into your head at an early age...like Santa and the Easter Bunny. You'd still believe in those two if all they handed out was advice.

Science welcomes challenges to its theories... Originally Posted by WTF

Tell that to the Climate Change nazis.

Tell that to the Climate Change nazis. Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

The climate people use fear like Bush used WMD's. No different. Except they may be right.

The climate people use fear... Originally Posted by WTF

And don't forget "manipulation".......

And don't forget "manipulation"....... Originally Posted by FriscoKiddo

Yes , there was the yellow cake manipulation.

May I ask if you fell for it? We're you for the invasion of Iraq?

When you hit your nadir...do you always go off topic?

Which version do you ascribe? The Koran...

And it has not stood the test of time, we weren't made 2000 years ago out of a rib...

The bible is full of more shit than a Christian turkey....yet because of man's fear of death, it persist. That and they pound that shit into your head at an early age...like Santa and the Easter Bunny. You'd still believe in those two if all they handed out was advice. Originally Posted by WTF

The Bible doesn't say that man was made out of a rib. Who's rib, what rib? I don't care if you have read the Bible from cover to cover you obviously don't understand a word in it.

The climate people use fear like Bush used WMD's. No different. Except they may be right. Originally Posted by WTF

Agreed. I don't think the ones who are predicting catastrophic changes are right though. Gnadfly's link is a lesson. Christy's research, described in the last part of this article, shows how and why many climatologists have been way too pessimistic,

https://cei.org/blog/bjorn-lomborg-a...imate-alarmism

The costs to implement something like the Green New Deal would be far greater than the benefits.

I'm no expert, but Bjorn Lomborg makes a lot of sense to me on this subject. We have no business spending trillions and trillions of dollars to combat climate change. But reasonable steps make sense, and we should be doing research on potential geoengineering solutions to global warming.

Something like a reasonable tax on carbon emissions, provided it's offset by lowering the income tax or paying down the debt, might be a good idea. Eliminating subsidies for gasoline and diesel, which are common in the developing world, is just common sense. The price of solar and wind are coming down, and probably will continue to, and with free markets will replace carbon fuels to some extent. Assuming it's left up to the market, we'll still need oil for transportation and chemicals. And also natural gas and coal for power generation when and where renewables are expensive.