Quote of the day—Peter James Spielmann

A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Peter James Spielmann
June 29, 1989
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
[The dates are not typos.

H/T to Michael Krieger.—Joe]

13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Peter James Spielmann

  1. It was 19 degrees F outside my house last night, and it’s 33 now. That’s a 14 degree warming in twelve hours! Surely we are all doomed within a matter of days.

    Let’s see then; there are two twelve hour periods in one day, and there are 365 days in a year, so that’s 730 twelve hour periods in a year. At this rate of warming then, the temperature in one year, at my house, will have increased by 10,220 (ten thousand two hundred twenty) degrees!

    Truth; IF this trend isn’t stopped or reversed, AND IF Congress does nothing about it, the oceans, all life, and then the very earth itself, will be vaporizing away within a matter of months, eventually becoming space-born plasma.

    You can run the numbers yourself. Math doesn’t lie. The science is settled. Anyone who disagrees with my findings is therefore threatening the lives of every living person and thing on the planet, and is therefore worse than Hitler.

    • I like the Bjorn Lomborg take on things. IF you assume that significant long term warming is happening and IF you assume humans are causing it and IF you assume it will have detrimental effects and IF you assume we can in fact do something about it, the cost is so astronomical to get an inconsequential reduction in warming beyond what the natural progression of technology brings that we’re better off just dealing with the consequences.

      And that’s only IF all those assumptions are correct. 3 of the 4 are pretty long shots all things considered….

  2. “…wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

    OK, so the trend, if there was one, did in fact reverse itself, so we’re out of the woods and we don’t have to talk about it anymore.

    But now they’re saying that we only have a couple of years and after that it’ll be absolutely too late to stop total, assured destruction. Good. Then after two more years or so, they have to shut the fuck up, because any further “action” on the matter will be futile.

    I just want to get it writing, signed by all the supposed “authorities” on the subject, and entered into the Congressional and UN, et al records, so we can be finished with the whole thing in couple of years and never hear about it from them ever again. Because then it’s all too late, it won’t matter a whit at that point, they say, and so there’s no point in talking about it.

    This is like those “Last Chance” spam e-mails I keep getting. OK so if this is truly my last chance, then I am grateful because you’ll no doubt be fucking off and not bothering me anymore after the deadline. Fine. Good.

    Please stick to your current climate narrative, for if you don’t then you’re admitting that you don’t believe your own bullshit, and so, again, you can be ignored without consequences. The only difference is that one way you’re just wrong, and the other way you’re both wrong and a proven liar/hypocrite.

  3. NO, no, no. You misunderstand. He wasn’t saying that the nations would be wiped out *BY* 2000 if we did nothing, we had to do something by then, and if the trend hadn’t been halted, then because of that those low-lying nations would be wiped out -eventually- by those then irreversible long term trends.


    To be serious, the trend has been halted. For nearly two decades, in fact.

    • You make an excellent point. There are two “outs” in the statement, freeing Spielmann and the UN from any responsibility down the road. “Could be” is one of those outs.

      The other out is in the lack of any assertion, or any implication whatsoever, of when this “wiping off the face of the earth of whole nations” might (“could”) occur. If the UN signatory nations haven’t waved their wands to change the climate trends by 2000, it could mean that in a hundred, or a thousand, or in ten thousand or a million or a billion or ten billion years, whole nations COULD BE wiped out.

      This is very important. It illustrates the clever technique of deception that we’re facing at every stage. It’s often so well done that we’ll be tempted to love it sometimes, only to find out later that we’ve allowed ourselves to be deceived. Then we’ll want to take a “rape shower” and move on, hopefully being a bit more attentive to the next deception.

      This is like satan telling Eve; “You will not surely die”. It opens the question of the definition of death, and makes it uncertain. All it does is introduce doubt. Some read it as saying “you will surely not die”, which is a completely different statement. “Surely not” is an absolute, positive declaration which can latter be exposed as an outright lie. “You will not surely die” allows for the possibility of death of some kind, and so in that case the hearer can be left with some of the blame. Eve may have interpreted it as “you will surely not die” when in fact it was not said, thus leaving satan, in his corrupted mind, and to some degree, blameless.

      Bill Clinton was a master of this kind of deception (or at least in its delivery, for we are all but actors on a stage). Some of us had to hone our sentence diagraming and parsing skills during that administration, but in fact it is a crucial skill in all times. The papacy mastered that style of deception centuries ago, practicing it to this day with tremendous effect (also in support of the anthropogenic Climate Change scam), and there are countless other examples.

  4. This is why it’s now called “climate change”, a term specifically chosen because it is always true. Ask any dinosaur.
    I have tucked away a temperature dataset taken from Greenland ice core samples (“GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data”). It’s pretty interesting, it goes back about 50,000 years. It is much colder than present (-35 to -50 degrees C, swinging wildly) until about 10,000 years ago, then there’s a sudden warmup to around -30.5 with far less variation, then dropping to -31 around 100 AD, down to -32 around 800 AD, back up to 30.5 for a brief period around 1000 AD, then back down to -32 until about 100 years ago when it slowly rises just a little, to -31.6. So it’s been colder and warmer, with the “warmer” more recently. The past 2000 years have been noticeably colder than before, while the recent warmup is nowhere near as great as the one around 1000 AD. Hm. that happens to be the time when the Vikings came this way, and named that place “Greenland”. Maybe that was marketing (“Hey Olaf, I have a bridge to tell you”) but maybe it was actually green back then rather than white.
    If the temperature rises a whole 2 degrees C from right now, that puts us back about where it was around the time of Caesar, and still a whole degree shy of the peaks of 1300 BC or 5800 BC.
    I’ve looked for other data at times but it’s hard to find. No real surprise; it’s well documented that the warmists work hard to hide the underlying data. I once found what seemed to be a very large dataset of weather station data all over the world going back 150-200 years — but it turned out not to be real data. It was instead “adjusted for seasonal variations” data. This is nuts; it’s all well and good to do adjusting, but you must keep the original data available so you can study the original data and the merits, if any, of the particular chosen adjustments as separate questions.

    • Absolutely it was marketing/PR on the Vikings part. They switched the names for Greenland and Iceland to entice Vikings to colonize Greenland as a weigh stop for trips to Vineland (North America). They had colonies there until the end of the Warm period. Couple hundred years, until they couldn’t grow any crops, and the ice made fishing/hunting the ocean too difficult.
      Apparently they have found evidence of Viking excursions as far as Michigan, IIRC. They followed rivers and coastlines to reach that point. When they first arrived, they found grapes growing profusely in the North East, due to the warm climate then. That was the basis for the name they gave the area, Vineland.

    • Every time they “adjust” or “homogenize” the raw data, surprisingly enough it’s always found that they need to modify the final published numbers in the dataset in the same direction, with older data being pushed down the most. It’s almost as if they wanted to increase the apparent uptrend by lowering the starting point on purpose, but I’m sure they’d never do that. I mean, they are scientists, with degrees and everything. I’m sure we can trust them.

      • As a (non-practicing) physicist, I have a simple view of all this:

        Any subject of study in which your political leaning matters is not a science. That means economics is not a science. And it means that while climatology may have been a science before Hansen, it isn’t any longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.