jump to navigation

Alarmist Predictions

From the BBC, October 13, 2008

Old Course ‘may crumble into sea’

How St Andrew's golf course would look under water

Professor Jan Bebbington visualised the effect of climate change on Scotland

An environmental expert in St Andrews has warned the year 2050 could see the town’s famous golf course, the Old Course, crumble into the North Sea.

Professor Jan Bebbington, director of the St Andrews Sustainability Institute, has visualised the effect of climate change on Scotland in 50 years. She was one of several commissioned by the David Hume Institute to predict what would happen in the future. Her report will be launched at Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh on Tuesday.

Prof Bebbington, of St Andrews University, also visualises a car-sharing nation of vegetarians, a country with evolving values, ‘respected and trusted’ political leaders working form a virtual parliament, and Celtic and Rangers players sharing the same carbon-neutral diet.

The world in which the speech is being delivered is one where dangerous climate change has been unleashed
Prof Jan Bebbington St Andrews Sustainability Institute

Prof Bebbington was asked to write an imaginary speech based on the assumption that Scotland had attained an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. Several authors, including St Andrews rector Simon Pepper, wrote as if they were delivering lectures at a world carbon forum to inspire countries which have fallen short of their targets. Prof Bebbington, writes in her imaginary speech: “We are living in a time of profound change, given the broader carbon performance of the globe. “Like many of your own countries we have had to adapt to more severe winter storms, to more flooding, coastal erosion and also rising sea levels. “We limited the effects of some of these impacts by banning building in high risk areas (some 20 years before the actual impacts were felt), progressively investing in strengthening our infrastructure and making a managed retreat from vulnerable coastal locations. “This was still a painful experience, especially as we lost many historical sites on coasts (for example, many of you will remember the sorrow at the last British Open played in St Andrews).” With the academic’s estimated world population of 9.5 billion in 2050, Prof Bebbington believes we will move towards a “largely vegetarian diet, with meat being eaten sparingly, but with great relish”.

She also predicts a move towards buying hardwood furniture made in Scotland, from timber grown in Scotland. ————————————————————————————-


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


1. Darryl Pendlebury - December 19, 2008

What a bunch of mindless pathetic losers to believe such rubbish. If Rudd was serious about the environment just think of what he could have done with the 10 billion he just handed out to Australias bludging class to buy plasma TV’s and playstations. Please give me a break.

2. Joel Black - March 9, 2009

Interesting way to keep up with the “facts” as predicted by “scientists”. Could you also go back in the timeline and list similar predictions, say beginning with Hansen’s first testimony, and give short bullet-point summaries of the real world results?

3. honestclimate - August 9, 2009

Click below for the Climate Change Alarmism Timeline 1895-2009:


4. co2co2co2 - September 14, 2009

what solar peak? the sun is at an extensive solar minimum right now!

5. Robert Godwin - November 19, 2009

It is discouraging and undermines the AGW argument when temperature data only goes back to 1950. There is data available for the 1920’s and 1930’s, which is the warmest period of the century.

Using more data would lead to a different result in terms of top ten warmest years.

Disheartening that apparently the data is chosen based on the outcome being sought.

6. Larry W. Smith - November 21, 2009

Why is the Scientific Method not being used by all of these wrold renound scientists and such on Global Warming?

7. Harpo - November 28, 2009


“Why is the Scientific Method not being used by all of these wrold renound scientists and such on Global Warming?”

That is the $64,000 question….

I found this in a US Senate report………. Paltridge is just one of 400 scientist quoted in the report.

Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, an Emeritus Professor from University of Tasmania, is another prominent skeptic. Paltridge who was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research before taking up positions in 1990 as Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania and as CEO of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Center. Paltridge questioned the motives of scientists hyping climate fears.

“They have been so successful with their message of greenhouse doom that, should one of them prove tomorrow that it is nonsense, the discovery would have to be suppressed for the sake of the overall reputation of science,”

Paltridge wrote in an April 6, 2007 op-ed entitled “Global Warming – Not Really a Done Deal?”

The use of the scientfic method in this case may destroy the credibility of their science. Catch 22.

8. rogerthesurf - January 18, 2010

I enjoyed all the alarmist statements, but I agreed with the one about the petrol price.
Meeting IPCC emission targets will make sure the price of energy is a lot higher than that!

Well there might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog


Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



PS The term “porky” is listed in the Australian Dictionary of Slang.( So I’m told.)

9. Stefan Mitich - July 27, 2011

Because oxygen & nitrogen expand when they warm up, into place of -90C, intercept extra coldness in 3,5seconds to equalize = extra heat in the atmosphere is not acumulative. When it gets colder, as in solar eclipse, O+N shrink = release less heat = cooling of the whole atmosphere is imposible! Part of the atmosphere always get warmer expands – intercepts extra coldnes, that coldness falls somwhere ellse because of winds and speening of the planet – but equalizes. IPCC are monitoring on 6000 places; what about on the other 60 billion places, where is not monitored? Are those places irelevant? What about on 67, 180m, 2km up in the air? Laws of physics say: when more CO2 +H2O in atmosphere, upper atmosphere warmer – on the ground days are cooler. Clear sky – days hotter, nights colder. Before you guys abolish the laws of physics; should only talk about localized warming and cooling; not GLOBAL! get corect info /fackts and formulas on http://www.stefanmitich.com P.s. why nobody thold me about this blog before?!

10. Stefan Mitich - July 27, 2011

About 80% of all the water in every sea and ocean combined is below 5C, water below 4degrees, when cools further down – it expands. Fill up a bottle of seawater at below zero – warm it up few degrees = will shrink. Fill the bottle at 4C and cool it few degrees = will explode. The sealevel goes up – when gets colder! Get corect scientific info on http://www.stefanmitich.com 2] when is warmer = more ice on the polar caps, not when colder. Water freezes on zero degrees, on polar caps is average temp -35degrees below zero. It depends on the amount of raw material for replanishing the ice, not on temperature. I.e. On Greenland is 1km thick ice; same latitude in Finland potatoes are growing; same latitude in Russian permafrost no ice. Sceptic’s warmer 1200AD was actualy colder northern hemisphere. Because Arctic’s water didn’t have enough ice cover as insulator. Was absorbing extra coldness and currents were spreading it south = less raw material for ice on Greenland. 3]Antarctic gets more ice on one side, when is El Nino, another side in La Nina. Ice on Antarctic is melted constantly by the thermal heat. Because ice as insulator is protecting that heat from the unlimited coldness on the surface. Sceptics are honest people with outdated theories. Find on my website, why the temperature changed in northern Europe from 1880’s and much more, on my website. Only solid evidences can stop the misleading. Active Sceptics are using Alarmist’ wrong data – to prove the Alarmist wrong… Laws of physics, boys! Sceptics become bigger Warmist than the Alarmist, because both camps ate acting as if they have abolished the laws of physics. those laws say: part of the planet’s atmosphere can get warmer, but another part simultaneously gets colder. Believing in warming and cooling of the whole planet makes both camps ”non believers in the laws of physics” = guilty about the ”flat rate carbon tax” shame, shame…!

11. Stefan Mitich - July 27, 2011

2009 for the first time engineers made powerfull filter, to make picture directly of the sun /to look at the sun. Talking about sunspots for the last 12 century was invented /incerted as a gues work = then they made it as factual. Teling that was or wasn’t sunspots in some previous century – doesn’t mean that has any substance – is only hint / proof that the person saying it is dishonest. When they realise that: solar and galagtic influence doesn’t make warmer or colder planet… The laws of physics /oxygen nitrogen shrinking and expanding regulation is so powerfull … Talking about solar ang galactic influence should be left to horoscope people. Interference with the earth’s magnetic field damages electronic equipment, but has nothing to do with the temperature. Please keep record what any alarmist predicts = on the base of their predictions, billions of tax $$$ has being laundered. People go to jail for $1000. Crime shouldn’t pay !!!

12. stefanthedenier - March 5, 2012

If Nigeria was supposed to sink by 2059, I would have believed, BOO!!! But 2058… NO!

Their crystal balls have lots of thin air in, to harvest from…. but tarot cards reading is much more reliable. In the name of science, they should go back to reading tea-leafs; if they want to be taken seriously,

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: