UN 1982 : World To End Before The Year 2000

The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982

http://news.google.com/

http://thegwpf.org/

h/t to “Ordinary Debater”

 

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to UN 1982 : World To End Before The Year 2000

  1. suyts says:

    I think we should retroactively give Kenya a few billion dollars because they were prophetic.

  2. Bruce says:

    I like “world governments must take action now or face disaster”. Sounds familiar.

  3. Justa Joe says:

    Notice how the resident trolls never try to explain away this type alarmism gone wild.

    • Viv Evans says:

      Of course they don’t!
      They prefer to entangle everybody in a debate about ‘The science’, because that means we take our eyes off the ball of the real political consequences, some of which are already taking place.

      Hoo-sticks, anyone?

  4. Stefan says:

    The irony is that the organisations that care most about ecology seem to be the ones who understand it the least.

    Poor data, poor methods, and complex systems driven by unknown forces.

    It’s not that I don’t believe in disasters – history is full of genocides, plagues, famines – but I don’t see these people having anything useful to contribute.

  5. Josik says:

    This one from 2007 is even better:
    “Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012″
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html

  6. Andy Weiss says:

    Unfortunately for them, the alarmists now have a track record regarding their Chicken Little predictions, including the infamous failed hockey stick.

  7. Chad Woodburn says:

    When someone predicts the end of the world as a result of supernatural causes, people mock him as a religious nutcase. But if he predicts the end of the world as a result of natural causes, people applaud him as a scientist. And the difference is … ? Well, the religious person tries to “save” as many people as he can, while the “scientist” contends that we need to reduce the population in order to “save” the world. All things considered, the religious wacko seems less dangerous to society.

  8. Ken Smith says:

    Thank you for posting this, Steve.

    This is an important piece of evidence because predicts environmental calamity without pointing to a mechanism by which that calamity is supposed to come about. In 1982, the dangerous man-made global warming theory had not yet coalesced. But belief in environmental apocalypse was already quite mainstream. AGW theory is an artificially manufactured solution to a non-empirical question.

    Current “consensus” AGW theory is, basically, an effort to scientifically buttress beliefs about nature and man’s impact on the planet that were already well established. Until this is widely understood (and corrected), I think climate science will resemble–both literally and metaphorically–Copernican astronomy in the late 16th and early 17th century. Literally, in that scientists have wrongly put CO2 in the center of their paradigm, creating confusion that has to be dealt with by resort to odd sub-theories (like epicycles). Metaphorically, in that the effort to preserve an existing paradigm has taken on the tone of a religious cause.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s