My Forecast For 2035

In 2035, global cooling alarmists will be claiming that the global warming scare never happened. ”

We did a search of peer-reviewed literature from 2000-2010 and found only seven papers promoting the idea of global warming.”

About stevengoddard

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

14 Responses to My Forecast For 2035

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    Please don’t tell me this came from Moncton 😉

    • Mike Davis says:

      You can already see the rewrites that will supersede older comments with the new use of AGCD which replaced CAGCC which replaced CAGW which replaced CC for which the IPCC was formed. As there has been little or no real science to support the current claims, in 2030 it will be correct to claim ” There were no scientific claims about Global Warming in “Respected Scientific” Journals.
      There have been other acronyms interspersed through the recent haistory because of the difficulty of defining an undefinable fantasy.

    • Paul H says:

      Hi Tony

      I notice from your profile you are into juggling + comedy.

      Were you at college with Phil Jones?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        No, But I wish I had been. If I had been around intelligent, rigorous scientists when I was in High school, instead of a conservative fundamentalist community, I probably would have become a scientist. And made a lot less money!
        I knew more about relativity than my physics teacher! And they fed us this garbage that I was in a great high school. When I got to college and discovered that I was just average, when I had been in the top of my class at high school, I started seeing how narrow minded and willfully ignorant conservative america was.

      • Paul H says:


        Now I can see why you went into comedy.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Thanks paul.

        I get my best material from the comments section of sites like this, Climate Audit, Human, Events, Commentary, etc.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        yes they are human, and I have my issues with the lack of breadth of learning among scientists among other things. Especially in the fields I am most competent in related to education, development, and understanding bias and deception. Though often the best in the field are the most open, and insightful.

  2. PJB says:

    It will be easy to discount terms and phrases like:

    “We believe that it is highly likely that there may be significant impacts…”

    pretty much a hallmark of the IPCC and the lack of verifiable and statistically significant (at some confidence limit approaching 95%+) results from even their spurious data sources.

  3. NoMoreGore says:


    Sounds like you saw what you wanted to see. The teaching profession is solidly on the left. The term “Fundamentalist” typically applies to religious dogma, and as we’ve seen with CAGW, the left embraces dogma as well as anyone. They simply replaced spiritual Deity with Gaia.

    Nearly all high school students find that their High School wasn’t on par with the University, today (with left minded faculty) more so than ever. I skipped high school and went directly into college, graduating first in my class. It sounds like the problem was your own.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Well, I certainly contributed. But what I saw was real and big parts of it were destructive. Alas I was not as smart as you, but then I learned to understand bias and self deception. In my school many people did not believe in evolution. Some very samrt students would learn the required biology, get A’s on the tests and then spout ridiculous talking points against it.
      As for dogma, i have yet to see any published paper mention Gaia or ANY non scientific principles. While I agree that there are leftists that embrace ACC without question, NONE of the scientists I know do so. All the ones I know are highly critical of assertions made without solid research behind them.
      The dogma I see is in people who embrace the free market as their GOD and oppose anything that undermines that idea that all problems can be solved by it. So they therefore invent all sorts of pseudo scientific explanations, and only look at one side, ignore any evidence that contradicts their views, and ridicule those that question them.
      I am still waiting for any established climate scientist, who has been “duped” by the global warming hoax to admit that the entire climate community is corrupt and start printing scientific research in peer reviewed journals.
      if one looks at the history of science, especially something like the issue Steve brought up about tectonics, or real conspiracies, such as lysenkoism, all the signs point to much of the conspiracy proclaiming denier movement as being the side of dogma.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Well TonyD:
        I only spent 37 years studying technical manuals and relating what I learned in them to the real world. I was expected to have an unbiased outlook and be able to find problems them come up with solutions. It did not matter if the problems were in thew manuals or if it was human induced problems. Up until my last year of work I attended 6 weeks of training in my field each year. I dealt with hardware, Software, electromechanical and all means of human interfaces for communications. I was able to retire 8 years before my planned retirement and would have gone before but for requests from my employer to delay leaving. my position was a trouble shooter and analyst and i had to be able to separate BS from reality to do that successfully.
        Dog,a is circling the wagons to defend an undefendable position like what was displayed in the CRU e-mails and is now being displayed in your writing at this site. All the “GATE” issues that have come up and the reactions by the tribe are evidence of DOGMA.
        Keep right on defending and give more proof of your belief in the cult of Global Warming!

      • Bruce says:

        Mate, read the data. If you do so as a scientist there is only one conclusion you can come to: greenhouse gas warming has at most a small contribution to the small amount of warming seen in the last century or more. Numerous other significant variables exist and contribute (ie soot, UHI, cyclic aspects like PDO+AMO, solar irradiance etc). Anyone who can do multiple regression can see it.

        If theory doesn’t match empirical data, we know that adding epicycles onto epicycles doesn’t make it better. Scientists like Kepler adjust their hypotheses to fit the data.

        Now, is a scientist interpreting data to be called dogma? Or that other disgusting “d” word you used?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s