by nick c » Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:16 pm
[Note: In the article referenced in the original post on this thread, the word "catastrophists" is used in reference to those predictors of imminent doom due to anthropogenic climate change.
Not to be confused with "Catastrophism", which is a paradigm in geology which is associated with Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and experienced a revival and expansion (neo catastrophism) in the 20th C, spearheaded by Velikovsky. Juergens, Talbott, Cardona, Thornhill, et al...]
Maol wrote:A bitter disappointment for the catastrophists, but good news for the world at large.
Yes. Here is a link with a list of the dismal failure of predictions made by global warming/climate change alarmists over the years.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years ... -are-0-50/
One of the standards for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a scientific theory is its ability to predict.
[Note: In the article referenced in the original post on this thread, the word "catastrophists" is used in reference to those predictors of imminent doom due to anthropogenic climate change.
Not to be confused with "Catastrophism", which is a paradigm in geology which is associated with Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) and experienced a revival and expansion (neo catastrophism) in the 20th C, spearheaded by Velikovsky. Juergens, Talbott, Cardona, Thornhill, et al...]
[quote="Maol"]A bitter disappointment for the catastrophists, but good news for the world at large.[/quote]
Yes. Here is a link with a list of the dismal failure of predictions made by global warming/climate change alarmists over the years.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
One of the standards for the evaluation of the effectiveness of a scientific theory is its ability to predict.