Flashback to ABC’s 2008 climate predictions for 2015

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

Working for leftist global warming activist community and the Democratic Party (but I repeat myself): In 2008 ABC News did a special on what global warming was going to do to the climate in the coming years, and predicted disaster by June 2015.

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, “It’s June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99.” (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: “Gas reached over $9 a gallon.” (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program “puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.” As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that “flames cover hundreds of miles.” Then-GMA co-anchor Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?”

ABC is also the same network that sees nothing wrong with its main news anchor, George Stephanopolos, giving tens of thousands of dollars to aid the presidential campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton. Think of these details the next time you see any news reporting from them.



  • Cotour

    “CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called “Earth 2100.” We’re asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don’t save our troubled planet. – See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june#.VXrMEsPsCzc.twitter

    The people are what’s troubled, the planet is doing just fine.

  • Cotour

    Flash!: Polar bear adapts to changing conditions in its environment in order to survive, and that’s a bad thing?


  • David M. Cook

    I think Yahoo News is just as bad as ABC (or any of the others, except for Fox).

  • Cotour

    At the minimum they are ALL headline whores, some content may be less driven by blatant agenda and very blatant political support, but they are all headline whores, and probably all just whores in general.

    And I am an optimist!

  • PeterF

    * Think of these details the next time you see any news reporting from them.

    News? Used to be called propaganda.
    Notice that now they only make predictions for what’s going to happen after everyone now alive has died. (Must have noticed what fools they looked).
    My prediction is that their wild predictions for the far future will be just as wildly inaccurate.

    (How come reCaptcha won’t accept beer as a food selection?)

  • Cotour

    Listening to Larry Kudlow this Saturday morning, the media attempts to shape the public’s view:

    Dear Larry,

    Listening to you today on the subject of this trade process or bill is like your first caller has stated, confusing. The people of America object to this entire TPA process or any new law that results from it because they see it as:

    1. further empowering this president. They do not want any more of Obama’s “good works”.

    2. The fact that you have just said that “you don’t care what words are in the agreement”, that is further confusing to me, much like those annoying words in Obamacare that are before the Supreme Court where the states are to set up the healthcare exchanges. Words in agreements and laws have meaning!

    3. The secretive nature of the process (just like Obamacare) where as now Paul Ryan has said just like Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it before you can know what is in it”. An outrageous attitude towards the people of America at the least and possibly treasonous at the max. Enough of that, politicians scare the hell out responsible American people that pay for everything through taxation and are the people that ythey work for, not against.

    4. The people of America see the Liberals actively importing ILLEGAL “IMMIGRANTS” into America in order to forever secure their political dynasty, and the Republicans wanting to further import immigrants into America to lower their corporate masters overhead in order to lower their labor costs. The results of these activities is to further erode actual naturally born Americans standard of living and what appears to be the creation of a One World style governance system where America’s sovereignty is again further eroded.

    5. Your insider perspective and promotion of what you constantly say you are a proponent of “free trade”, without including the context of the previously listed American voter concerns is disrespectful? Condescending? Elitist? Biased? Dismissive? Disrespectful? Agenda driven? Choose one. Much like the difference between admiring a lion from 20 feet outside its secure enclosure in a zoo and admiring a lion from 20 feet on the plains of Africa. Two very different perspectives.

    So your inability to understand (which I find hard to believe) or your choice to not understand on this issue, like I said, confuses me, as it confuses many, many others in your listening audience.

    Thank you.

  • wodun

    “(How come reCaptcha won’t accept beer as a food selection?)”

    Dang those anti-science algorithms! /shakesfist

  • wodun

    I am always surprised by how AGW alarmists never have to defend, respond to, or explain all of these failed predictions. We just get more end of world predictions without anyone wondering why the last predictions never came to pass.

    For any other movement, being constantly wrong about predictions of such magnitude would bring discredit or at the very least raise some red flags and cause people to reexamine their “science” but among AGW alarmists the devotion grows stronger despite the paradigm shattering contradictions.

  • Maurice Levie

    Since we are talking about NYC and inundation, I have to weigh in as a Dutchman living in the US:
    1. I got to walk around manhattan for a week, and it immediately became clear to me why the dutch traders build a sea wall at what is now called wall street – the island is prone to flooding from the north.
    2. With the exception of Biloxi, MS I have never seen a coastal community so obsessed about building right up to the water line, even though it very vulnerable to flooding at high tide due to its peculiar location perpendicular to the coast that pushes storms up the Hudson. The tour guides point out that the sea can normally flow up the hudson for about 160 miles as well due to its weak flow.
    3. The original island of mana hatta seems to have been flattened except in the area of what is now Grant’s tomb on the north east side, making it highly likely any flooding would affect most of the island
    4. Irrespective of whether climate change is real/not real/paused/whatever there are hundred year and thousand year storms that “happen” and the prevailing attitude is “not my problem”/”someone else’s problem”. Any sea defenses are pitiful, a fact everyone got to see for themselves in New Orleans when all but the french quarter flooded.

    Looking rather harshly at a lot of the eastern seaboard, I wouldn’t want to be investing in beach front property in miami or the entire gulf coast either. The alarmist would have you believe our cities will be underwater, I posit that they already have, many times over, and each time we forget it happened.

  • PeterF

    It wasn’t long ago that a “beach shack” was precisely that. A shack that you could use for a quiet vacation during nice weather but might get washed away next winter. No problem, build another one with pieces from other shacks that had been washed away. No one in their right mind would spend serious cash on property in a flood zone.
    Then some well-meaning progressives decided that the US government should back the insurance for the poor people who lost all their possessions during severe weather events. Now the poor people who don’t live anywhere near the water get to pay for the repairs to million dollar McMansions and their private beaches.

    One time, I volunteered to do a spring beach cleanup. I said “What a nice beach, I’ll have to come back with the kids.” It was pointed out that if I did I would be escorted off by the local constabulary.

    They can clean up their own damn beach.

  • Maurice Levie

    Whomever came up with the idea that you could own coastline must have been holding onto plenty.

  • Edward

    The video said that there would be floods, droughts, wildfires, and New York would be under water. Even agriculture production would drop.

    All these things happened. Texas just had a flood, California is in a drought and its agricultural production is declining, there are wildfires around the country (though none quite so big as the Yellowstone fire, a few decades back — before global warming), and a couple of years ago, New York flooded (or at least parts of the subway did).

    Just like the kid said in the video, I’m scared [beep] right now, but I have to get this out.

    Oh, wait. All these are normal, and have been for the centuries of recorded history, and are seen in archaeological records that go back for millennia.

    Never mind.

  • PeterF

    The drought in California is a common recurring phenomenon. Thats why they built reservoir capacity to handle a five year drought. but all that water gets flushed down the rivers so the (non-threatened species) delta smelt can enjoy brackish water. Now those EEEEVIL farmers are drilling wells and using up (publicly owned) water from the aquifer to benefit their “businesses”. – according to 60 minutes who failed to mention the smelts or the reservoirs. (world class A-holes)…
    By the way, the central valley of California could feed every person in the entire world. But the environmentalists don’t care if it dries up. They REALLY CARE about nature and they buy their food from Whole Foods anyway.
    The common wildfires around the country have morphed into a major disasters because decades of of CARING environmentalists have been preventing forest fires. (Smokey says; “Only YOU can prevent forest fires”).
    If you really research most modern environmental disasters, you will find an environmentalist who’s actions have exacerbated the situation. Which is strange because their all REALLY SMART. Most of them went to college don’t cha know..
    And they all REALLY CARE.

  • Edward

    Peter wrote: “Thats why they built reservoir capacity to handle a five year drought.”

    They built those reservoirs decades ago, but the modern environmentalists, lately, have been getting them torn down. And you are right, 70% of the water that falls on California flows to the sea, rather than soaking into the soil or being used for agriculture or urban/suburban living/industry.

    (BTW: the Delta Smelt are doing significantly worse than before the extra water was diverted to them. They are the indicator fish for the health of the Delta, and they could only be doing poorly because the Delta is doing poorly, not because there is a competing organism(s) that is better adapted to the Delta.)

    Those really smart environmentalists are convinced that they know the answers, but if things don’t get better, such as too little water, then they just apply more of their answer, such as tearing down more of the dams that make up the flood control/irrigation system. After all, they know what the answer is, so they must have originally applied too little of the answer to the problem. (Or did they misdiagnose the problem?)

    But they must be right, because — as you say — they are smart and they care. With a combination like that, how could they possibly be wrong?

Leave a Reply

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