Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Climate Depot)   "30 years on, how well do global warming predictions stand up?" (Republished from WSJ)   ( climatedepot.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Mr. Hansen, Climate change, Global warming, Temperature, Celsius, Absolute zero, Climate, Thermodynamic temperature  
•       •       •

3187 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jun 2018 at 6:44 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-06-22 06:20:26 PM  
uploads.disquscdn.comView Full Size

like he slightly low balled it...
 
2018-06-22 06:44:59 PM  
Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science.

Mmmmkay.
 
2018-06-22 07:50:14 PM  
Republished from WSJ

*points*

*laughs*
 
2018-06-22 08:12:38 PM  
Cherry, Cherry Picker, Queen of the Wild Frontier!

Here is the 30 year retrospective from a responsible media source, not a denialist website;

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/warne​d​-30-years-ago-global-warming-is-in-our​-living-room-1.3978333

Here is NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/​g​lobal-temperature/

Another mainstream media source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/global-w​a​rming-is-in-our-living-room-warning-30​-years-ago-climate-change-james-hansen​/

And so on and so forth.

Arctic ice cover in September:  down by one third in thirty years.

Temperatures: up by several degrees Celsius, especially if you concentrate on the coldest places, seeing as heat flows down the temperature gradient and accumulates at night and in Winter and high latitudes and to some extent, also high altitudes.

Scientists use a 30 year average as the bar against which warming and other climate change is measured. consequently the bar has been rising for the last 30 years as each new year brings a slew of high records and very few low records fall.
 
2018-06-23 07:09:12 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science.

Mmmmkay.


With a banner ad praising Trump for leaving the Paris Accord.
 
2018-06-23 07:15:18 AM  

blastoh: [uploads.disquscdn.com image 664x401]
like he slightly low balled it...


...except that's not the prediction from 1988, that's one of his earliest predictions - one that was discarded by 1988.

His 1988 prediction had, A, B, and C scanarios - and the "C" version is the one that matches the actual observed temperature. You know, the one where there would be massive reductions in CO2, instead of the fairly linear increase actually seen.

Basically, his prediction is about double the actual observed warming, compared to the real CO2 increase.
 
2018-06-23 07:33:47 AM  
I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.
 
2018-06-23 07:45:14 AM  

Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.


No climatologist said any of those things.
 
2018-06-23 07:55:42 AM  
Is this some sort of satire? I know it can't possibly be serious.
WTF did I just read?
 
2018-06-23 07:59:56 AM  

Flappyhead: ecmoRandomNumbers: Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science.

Mmmmkay.

With a banner ad praising Trump for leaving the Paris Accord.


It really looks like a parody they designed with late 90s Geocities tools.
I have yet to be convinced it isn't some false flag plotted to make deniers look stupid.
That's certainly all it accomplishes.
 
2018-06-23 08:07:42 AM  
So global warming isn't happening because some climate model from the 80's underestimated how much heat the oceans could absorb?

OK, guess I'll just discard all this data that says the Earth is continuing to get hotter and hotter.
 
2018-06-23 08:27:21 AM  
I like how they dismiss the 2015-16 El Niño but talk about how the earth hasn't warmed much (by the lowest time series - the UAH satellite data) since the step change from the prior massive 1998 El Niño.  Cherry picking.
 
2018-06-23 08:48:50 AM  
Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.
 
2018-06-23 08:54:35 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
And I tell you the Earth is simply shifting its orbit.
 
2018-06-23 09:11:34 AM  

jso2897: Is this some sort of satire? I know it can't possibly be serious.
WTF did I just read?


they are serious.
Paid Schills but serious.

what is sad is they actually have a large audience who think global warming is a hoax.
 
2018-06-23 09:23:31 AM  

SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.


Reminds me of an academic joke:
A university is holding a common final exam for all disciplines.  The final exam question: "Describe a cow."
First up, the biologist.  She describes the cow as an ungulate and goes on to define its organ systems.
Next, the biochemist.  He talks about how you could grind up a cow and then purify it to harvest its component proteins.
After that, a philosopher.  She gives an exposition on "What, really, is the essence of cow-ness?"
Finally, the physicist.  "Okay," he begins, "let's start by assuming the cow is a sphere...."
 
2018-06-23 09:40:14 AM  

whidbey: Republished from WSJ

*points*

*laughs*


This.

No clicks for wingnut opinion rags.
 
2018-06-23 09:41:59 AM  

Fallout Zone: I like how they dismiss the 2015-16 El Niño but talk about how the earth hasn't warmed much (by the lowest time series - the UAH satellite data) since the step change from the prior massive 1998 El Niño.  Cherry picking.


Much like how they were biatching about one urban heat sensor that was misplaced near an AC exhaust vent.

Pitch out ALL the urban data, and guess what?  

Deniers are STILL wrong.

Just like the GOP, it's a cult.
 
2018-06-23 09:53:14 AM  
It's great that we green links straight from climate change denial websites that are just copypasta of WSJ editorials written by Cato Institute people using cherry-picked data. If you can't trust that pedigree, what can you trust? Take that, 97% of climatologist losers!

Here's some links from fringe websites that are so stupid they actually believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening and accelerating.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://royalsociety.org/topics-polic​y​/projects/climate-change-evidence-caus​es/basics-of-climate-change/
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming​/​science-and-impacts/science/human-cont​ribution-to-gw-faq.html
 
2018-06-23 10:13:08 AM  
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman ... Wikipedia
 
2018-06-23 10:22:32 AM  
The ad that the top is your first warning. The fact that the guy is from the Cato Institute is your second.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-23 10:38:32 AM  
Hmm via sourcewatch https://www.sourcewatch.o​rg/index.php/​Climate_Depot
img.fark.net
Learn more from the Center for Media and Democracy's research on climate change.
ClimateDepot.com
is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano, a conservative global warming denier who previously served as environmental communications director for a vocal political denier of climate change, Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Launched in spring 2009, Climate Depot claimed it would be "the Senate EPW website on steroids," and "the most comprehensive information center on climate news and the related issues of environment and energy."[1]


ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime financier of conservative causes, including being the primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency [1]. According to a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32].
Craig Rucker, a co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, said the committee got a third of its money from other foundations. However, Rucker would not identify them or say how much his foundation would pay Marc Morano. Rucker did say that ExxonMobil did not contribute anything to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow in 2008 [2].

Ya so not really an unbiased or in anyway scientific source.
 
2018-06-23 10:42:07 AM  

hissatsu: Take that, 97% of climatologist losers!


Yeah, who you going to believe?

A paid-for shill, or the global shipping and insurance industries, plus the US Navy?

/ironic that sea-level RISE is a problem for the Navy
 
2018-06-23 10:47:53 AM  

SomeAmerican: So global warming isn't happening because some climate model from the 80's underestimated how much heat the oceans could absorb?

OK, guess I'll just discard all this data that says the Earth is continuing to get hotter and hotter.


To understand this, it helps to keep in mind that these people believe that their ancestors were imparted inerrant divine information thousands of years ago and it has required no correction since. The idea that knowledge is developed and refined over time, with incorrect information being discarded, is simply not part of the religious worldview.
 
2018-06-23 11:25:00 AM  

Ishkur: Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.

No climatologist said any of those things.


Climate Denialists are famous for being able to carry enormous bales of Strawmen.
 
2018-06-23 11:27:19 AM  

jso2897: WTF did I just read?


Everything is fine, citizen.
 
2018-06-23 11:31:13 AM  

docmattic: SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.

Reminds me of an academic joke:
A university is holding a common final exam for all disciplines.  The final exam question: "Describe a cow."
First up, the biologist.  She describes the cow as an ungulate and goes on to define its organ systems.
Next, the biochemist.  He talks about how you could grind up a cow and then purify it to harvest its component proteins.
After that, a philosopher.  She gives an exposition on "What, really, is the essence of cow-ness?"
Finally, the physicist.  "Okay," he begins, "let's start by assuming the cow is a sphere...."


What they needed was a Nexialist.

Seriously. Science has an enormous problem today: we now know so much that no single person can know more than a smattering of any given discipline.

And this is the real and lasting value of AI: being able to tie it all together.
 
2018-06-23 11:34:46 AM  

PunGent: hissatsu: Take that, 97% of climatologist losers!

Yeah, who you going to believe?

A paid-for shill, or the global shipping and insurance industries, plus the US Navy?

/ironic that sea-level RISE is a problem for the Navy


Makes sense to me. It pushes their boats closer to the sky, where they'll eventually smack into planes. The Army's lucky: they'll gradually have less land to worry about.
 
2018-06-23 11:42:36 AM  

Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.


Congratulations, you bought what an idiot sold you.
 
2018-06-23 11:58:30 AM  
Getting your science from Forbes and WSJ is like getting your news form FOX. You'll still be a moron but can prance around as if you stayed at Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2018-06-23 12:00:07 PM  
Those Related Articles and that Banner Ad

This absurdly biased, piece of garbage rag got greenlit?
 
2018-06-23 12:18:49 PM  
That was a bunch of very well cherry picked data that proved absolutely nothing.
 
2018-06-23 12:39:08 PM  

Harlee: Seriously. Science has an enormous problem today: we now know so much that no single person can know more than a smattering of any given discipline.


It's not that people are too stupid to understand science, it's that science has advanced to such a degree that it has effectively become incomprehensible to most people. That's not the fault of education -- I don't think education can solve this problem (or even keep up with the rapid pace of change).

The truth is our society has become so complex and so highly specialized that none of us ever understand everything that's going on, and when we don't understand something, we tend to fear and repel it.

Or as James Burke aptly put it: Never before have so many people understood so little about so much.
 
2018-06-23 01:11:18 PM  

Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.


Every hurricane IS a Katrina

To ME
 
2018-06-23 01:16:04 PM  

blastoh: [uploads.disquscdn.com image 664x401]
like he slightly low balled it...


Gee that's a nice exponential curve you got researched there, sure would be a shame if somebody defunded ya.
 
2018-06-23 01:19:09 PM  
Boiling Frog says the water's fine. Come on in!
 
2018-06-23 02:21:20 PM  
I much prefer Denial Depot over Climate Depot

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

Welcome to the most factual and sincere climate science blog on the internet. Winner of multiple anonymous awards.

I am certainly not afraid to be called a climate denier, in fact I embrace the term denier as medal of honor, once bestowed upon Galileo and lately upon me. That is why this blog is called Denial Depot - serving up all your denial needs.

I stand unimpressed by "textbooks", "peer review journals" and so-called "facts". There are no facts, just dissenting opinion.

I believe the day will come when all science is done on blogs, because us bloggers are natural skeptics, refusing to believe the Official Story handed out by the government. When so-called "experts" in their "peer reviewed journals" say one thing, we dare the impossible and find an imaginative justification to believe the complete opposite.
 
2018-06-23 03:28:27 PM  
There's now a northwest passage
 
2018-06-23 03:57:57 PM  

docmattic: SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.

Reminds me of an academic joke:
A university is holding a common final exam for all disciplines.  The final exam question: "Describe a cow."
First up, the biologist.  She describes the cow as an ungulate and goes on to define its organ systems.
Next, the biochemist.  He talks about how you could grind up a cow and then purify it to harvest its component proteins.
After that, a philosopher.  She gives an exposition on "What, really, is the essence of cow-ness?"
Finally, the physicist.  "Okay," he begins, "let's start by assuming the cow is a sphere...."


You heard the boring version of that joke.

Ever lower milk prices were driving a dairy farmer to desperate measures. Two years ago, he tried "Beethoven for Bovines" in his barn and milk production dropped 2%. Last year he signed up for "hex the herd" where Genuine Santa Barbara WitchesTM remotely hexed your herd for health and higher production. (The ad had said its hexes were the cause of California's improved milk production, but it didn't seem to work in Wisconsin.) So this year he drove to town to consult the ultimate power source: a theoretical physicist. The physicist listened to his problem, asked a few questions, and then said he'd take the assignment, and that it would take only a few hours to solve the problem. A few weeks later, the physicist phoned the farmer, "I've got the answer. The solution turned out to be a bit more complicated than I thought and I'm presenting it at this afternoon's Theory Seminar". At the seminar the farmer finds a handful of people drinking tea and munching on cookies---none of whom looks like a farmer. As the talk begins the physicist approaches the blackboard and draws a big circle. "First, we assume a spherical cow..."
 
2018-06-23 04:01:13 PM  

UsikFark: docmattic: SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.

Reminds me of an academic joke:
A university is holding a common final exam for all disciplines.  The final exam question: "Describe a cow."
First up, the biologist.  She describes the cow as an ungulate and goes on to define its organ systems.
Next, the biochemist.  He talks about how you could grind up a cow and then purify it to harvest its component proteins.
After that, a philosopher.  She gives an exposition on "What, really, is the essence of cow-ness?"
Finally, the physicist.  "Okay," he begins, "let's start by assuming the cow is a sphere...."

You heard the boring version of that joke.

Ever lower milk prices were driving a dairy farmer to desperate measures. Two years ago, he tried "Beethoven for Bovines" in his barn and milk production dropped 2%. Last year he signed up for "hex the herd" where Genuine Santa Barbara WitchesTM remotely hexed your herd for health and higher production. (The ad had said its hexes were the cause of California's improved milk production, but it didn't seem to work in Wisconsin.) So this year he drove to town to consult the ultimate power source: a theoretical physicist. The physicist listened to his problem, asked a few questions, and then said he'd take the assignment, and that it would take only a few hours to solve the problem. A few weeks later, the physicist phoned the farmer, "I've got the answer. The solution turned out to be a bit more complicated than I thought and I'm presenting it at this afternoon's Theory Seminar". At the seminar the farmer finds a handful of people drinking tea and munching on cookies---none of whom looks like a farmer. As the talk begins the physicist approaches the blackboard and draws a big circle. "First, we assume a spherical cow..."


Ahhh.  Apparently you must be aware of a hitherto obscure definition of the word "joke."
 
2018-06-23 04:06:36 PM  

docmattic: UsikFark: docmattic: SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.

Reminds me of an academic joke:
A university is holding a common final exam for all disciplines.  The final exam question: "Describe a cow."
First up, the biologist.  She describes the cow as an ungulate and goes on to define its organ systems.
Next, the biochemist.  He talks about how you could grind up a cow and then purify it to harvest its component proteins.
After that, a philosopher.  She gives an exposition on "What, really, is the essence of cow-ness?"
Finally, the physicist.  "Okay," he begins, "let's start by assuming the cow is a sphere...."

You heard the boring version of that joke.

Ever lower milk prices were driving a dairy farmer to desperate measures. Two years ago, he tried "Beethoven for Bovines" in his barn and milk production dropped 2%. Last year he signed up for "hex the herd" where Genuine Santa Barbara WitchesTM remotely hexed your herd for health and higher production. (The ad had said its hexes were the cause of California's improved milk production, but it didn't seem to work in Wisconsin.) So this year he drove to town to consult the ultimate power source: a theoretical physicist. The physicist listened to his problem, asked a few questions, and then said he'd take the assignment, and that it would take only a few hours to solve the problem. A few weeks later, the physicist phoned the farmer, "I've got the answer. The solution turned out to be a bit more complicated than I thought and I'm presenting it at this afternoon's Theory Seminar". At the seminar the farmer finds a handful of people drinking tea and munching on cookies---none of whom looks like a farmer. As the talk begins the physicist approaches the blackboard and draws a big circle. "First, we assume a spherical cow..."

Ahhh.  Apparently you must be aware of a hitherto obscure definition of the word "joke."


The punchline is in the center, i.e. that your local theoretical physicist is the ultimate source of answers. I hope you like series approximations.
 
2018-06-23 04:31:44 PM  
I hope everyone involved drowns in a fire. Fewer humans, good.
 
2018-06-23 04:51:04 PM  
scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size

Thanks, Al Gore
 
2018-06-23 05:04:15 PM  

Ishkur: Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.

No climatologist said any of those things.


You mean Al Gore isn't a climatologist? Nooooooooooooooooo
 
2018-06-23 05:19:43 PM  

Valiente: Fewer humans, good.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-06-23 06:17:56 PM  

SomeAmerican: Quick note about the quality of the models in the 80s.  Since weather systems are chaotic, sophisticated climate models requires strong computational power.

Today, an AMD Ryzen 7 in a desktop PC can process 304,510 MIPS (million operations per second).  In 1981, an IBM 3081 Mainframe could process 5 MIPS.  Also, Pac-Man was the pinnacle of video gaming technology.

So essentially we were at the "assume a spherical cow" level of simplicity back then.  I'm actually amazed that they were still in the right general ballpark.


carbonbrief.orgView Full Size

But then, of course they're all in the same general ballpark. There is too much uncertainty in the actual science and data, so the models are tuned to give the expected results.
 
2018-06-23 06:38:38 PM  
Science is vastly overrated. Give me some half-baked "research" that reinforces my half-baked opinion and that's all I need.

Oh, and this chair. And that's all I need.

Oh, and I need this lamp.
 
2018-06-24 01:54:18 AM  

cirby: blastoh: [uploads.disquscdn.com image 664x401]
like he slightly low balled it...

...except that's not the prediction from 1988, that's one of his earliest predictions - one that was discarded by 1988.

His 1988 prediction had, A, B, and C scanarios - and the "C" version is the one that matches the actual observed temperature. You know, the one where there would be massive reductions in CO2, instead of the fairly linear increase actually seen.

Basically, his prediction is about double the actual observed warming, compared to the real CO2 increase.


This really isn't true, and you have to be careful at what such deviations are actually telling you.
 
2018-06-24 04:13:55 AM  

Lee451: I recall after Hurricane Katrina it was pedicted that "every hurricane would be a 'Katrina' and cause billions of dollars in damage" due to global warming. How wrong they were. The number of hurricanes would increase, every winter would have heavier snowfall and "soon we would have Category 6 hurricanes". I'm still waiting but we must never question the Pontification from the Pulpit of Global Warming.


Citation Please.
 
2018-06-24 03:00:51 PM  
It was around 30 years ago or so I remember a graph they showed us in elementary school that estimated the world would be void of fossil fuels by 2019. Technically there is still a year left, but I don't think we'll be completely out.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report