A group of 500 esteemed scientists and professionals in climate science have officially notified the United Nations that there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on a non-problem is ‘cruel and imprudent’.
This letter will not make it into national or global media, nor will it cause the UN to change its ways. If these same scientists understood Technocracy, they would change their battle strategy. ⁃ TN Editor
Professor Guus Berkhout
The Hague
guus.berkhout@clintel.org
23 September 2019
Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency.
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.
Yours sincerely, ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration,
Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands
Professor Richard Lindzen USA
Professor Reynald Du Berger French Canada
Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand
Jim O’Brien Rep. of Ireland
Viv Forbes Australia
Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada
Professor Benoît Rittaud France
Morten Jødal Norway
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Rob Lemeire Belgium
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley UK
There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crop worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.
I am one of the 500, and I am an astrophysicist with much the same education as the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen. Most physicists are versatile people, able to work on many scientific problems.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
My question is why those claiming law degrees, civil engineers, economic degrees, authors, and other unrelated fields are permitted on the list? This makes the whole thing a sham which is extremely unfortunate when trying to elevate the credibility of this group beyond the other nonsense group list recently released.
It also looks bad for those who really are climate scientists, like yourself.
It only shows you don’t know what real science is, only fragment science. Before 1968 we educated academic disciplines in universal basics first, then we took specialisation after.
Only by these universal basic knowledge of math, physics, sun system, its easy to prove there is only a marginal if any influence on the weather by CO2.
Its a financial model of energy controle (wealth) from Central Private Bankers (Al Gore ex CEO Goldman Sachs) without any relation to physical reality.
100 upticks. Climate science is politicised. Facts which don’t fit the political narrative are censored by politicised media. The elites perpetuating fear-driven “global warming” economic policies don’t want the message of sound science to reach the masses. “Build back better ” means culling the middle class and the poor whilst reducing world population. Control of food, and housing via Health and safety laws and cashless society will enable a one world government. That’s the goal.
Dont know if you are serious or just trolling. Not every scientist involved in climate research has a title that has climate in it. That should be a no brainer….
Tell me sweetie, is Greta a “climate scientist”? Or Justin Trudeau? Or AOC? I dare say 99% of the people promulgating that ideology have no scientific training whatsoever.
The key point is not the debate in the media or among politicians, the point is the debate among climate scientist. Clearly, from the point of view of science and the reality of the climate crisis, what Greta, Trudeau or AOC say is totally irrelevant. On the contray, what IPCC say is relevant.
“The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.
Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed…. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.” (https://www.ipcc.ch/) IPCC was created jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the *World Meteorological Organization* (WMO). Its reliability is therefore out of question.
The IPCC is a political body of the UN. It’s website states, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.” The IPCC does not create science. It curates what it wants from sources it chooses to support is preconceived political agenda. As such, it is totally biased toward the UN position and will not entertain any rebuttal from scientists who don’t agree with them.
Completely false. The IPCC based their assumptions on the Cook et Al report which has now been proven to be complete BS and they also used Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which has also been proven to be complete BS. IPCC are not scientists and do not care about the science, they are politicians who want nothing more than transfer of wealth and a global government. How do they achieve that goal? tell everyone they are going to die in 10 years and scare them into giving up their sovereignty. Esteemed people are quitting the IPCC for the simple fact… Read more »
The IPCC was founded by Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong was a shill for globalist plans and funded by globalists. The IPCC has no real interest in actual climate science but to push an agenda. The $trillions in carbon credits is at the heart of the system
It is a patently false statement that global warming is “scientifically irrefutable”. You are promoting pure political propaganda that refuses to accept the testimony of hundreds of scientists who say it isn’t true.
The ad in this post was sponsored by a defunct, obscure website that was ‘live’ for a couple of months and thus there is no authenticity behind the petition or the signers? This post itself was not “from the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009” as you stated, but from the ultra-liberal climate justice website Grist.org? Even Grist states, “None of the signers that Grist interviewed this week could recall who had organized the letter or knew who had asked Trump to sign. The website of the group listed on the ad, businessleaders4environmentalchange.us, is now defunct, and no information was… Read more »
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Grist (originally Grist Magazine; also referred to as Grist.org) is an American non-profit online magazine that has been publishing environmental news and commentary since 1999. Grist is a Pro-Science magazine that focuses on environmental issues. technocracy.news (Some sources might not be added based on a variety of factors)
(Click on the links below at your own risk. We have not verified them and some may lead to undesirable websites)
a) Wikipedia is no source of authority on anything, especially climate science
b) “hundreds of scientists denying global warming” – If this is the case, then the “science is not settled”, is it? You
Yeah been hearing that for the last 100 years, as for your comment that the science is irrefutable? you do realize you are writing that comment on an article which then context is of scientists refuting the current narrative right? You’re just proving how ignorant the climatards really are with that comment lol
What about the bullet points, Fanf? If the bullet points are true I, personally, don’t care what the signatories’ titles are.
+There is no climate emergency
+Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
+Warming is far slower than predicted
+Climate policy relies on inadequate models
+CO2 is not a pollutant.
+Global warming has not increased natural disasters
+Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
In fact, if there was a small amount of warming, it would save humanity from a FAR more dangerous situation, another Ice Age. THAT would cause catastrophic conditions, world wide famine with conditions preventing any crops for food of both humans and animals.
It’s called the Eddy Minimum, and we are at the beginning of it due to coinciding cycles of low sunspot activity. Sunspot activity also drives CME s, magnetic variations in the planet’s core; volcanism and earthquake activity, therefore resulting tsunamis.
Some points are right, while others are wrong. + There no real emergency right now, right. However there is a likely risk of an emergency in a few decades. + Natural factors cause warming, right. However anthropogenic ones exceed the former by far in present days. + Whether critical tempreratures will be reached in one of five decades is immaterial. It is still necessary to take action now. + I am not in a position to validate climatoligical models. However, since CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now over 30% higher than it has ever been in the past 800,000… Read more »
Read up on closed systems Claudio. They tend to self correct, i.e. more co2 more plant growth which consumes more co2 and lowers its levels. Takes a long time though. I have read that the most prevalent compound in our atmosphere is water vapor, i.e. clouds. It has a markedly greater influence on energy absorption from the sun which also is subject to cyclical variation. CO2 is great for the UN as it gives the masses a mythical escape from the inevitable demise of humanity and a nifty means to generate income primarily from the US which they dearly love.… Read more »
Isaac -There most certainly is a climate emergency in nearly every corner of the other – the poles are melting faster than anticipated, Greenland is melting faster than anticipated, sea levels have been rising steadily in most locations for 100 years (measured, not modeled); the last 16 years have been the hottest years on record, each one hotter than the last (measured, not modeled); storms are definitely increasing in size and intensity, as are wildfires -Natural factors such as sunspots, earth’s wobbly orbit, etc. in no way account for the accelerating RATE of change -Warming is far faster than ‘predicted’… Read more »
Again, you are repeating pure propaganda promoted by faulty science that has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists who remain untouched and uncorrupted by the United Nations and other global warming extremists.
For a fruitful discussion, we must understand the viewpoint of the climate change deniers. When they say that there is no emergency, there is something true in it. There is indeed no emergency RIGHT NOW. As a matter of fact, we could cope with the temperature increase and the extreme meteorological phenomena that occurred so far. The real emergency will be when sea level will rise by 50 cm or more – wiping out the atolls in the Pacific and largely damaging the cities located along the shores – and when the global conveyor belt ocean current system will stop.… Read more »
The sea levels are not rising, and considering that the debate over climate science is far from over, you cannot justify turning the entire world economy upside-down for an unproven theory.
Thank you very much indeed for your comment! It makes me aware of an important point, that the advocates of climate change (I am one of them) miss when they enter the debate with the general public. People are not moved by the fate of the polar bears or by the melting of glaciers. They are not concerned by the increase in sea level, nowadays still too low to be perceived. People are not concerned about what might happen in the future, they are instead concerned about what may happen now. They fear indeed that their way of life and… Read more »
Claudio – You won’t like that I say this, but your opinions are based on your ignorance, not facts. The underlying data of global warming science has been riddled with corruption, deception and political bias. The “inventor” of the so-called “hockey stick”, Michael Mann, was humiliated in Canada’s Supreme Court by Dr. Tim Ball, where Mann’s data was proven fraudulent. Global warming hysteria is fraudulent from the beginning. In the 1970s, the same people warned of Global Cooling – caused by man – that was just as fraudulent. So science just said “Oops” and took the polar opposite position all… Read more »
Patrick – I understand that we are on opposite sides in this discussion. Then, allow me to widen the discussion to science in general. As an academic by profession – although not in the domain of climate – I know that academics are not better than ordinary people. Sometimes they make mistakes or cheat or have agendas – maybe to please those who finance them. However, academics belong to an open community with a fierce internal competition. If someone has an agenda, there are others with an opposite agenda or maybe no agenda at all. They will provide different evidence… Read more »
Theory: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” (Dictionary.com)
As long as there are world-class scientists disputing global warming theory, the science is NOT settled. If the historical data has been faked or manipulated, if the computer models used to process the data are arbitrarily changed to support pre-determined conclusions, then the science is no science at all. Every single dissenting scientist should be allowed into the debate. Instead, they are ridiculed, shamed, browbeaten, slandered and ignored.
When we talk about science, the debate in the media is totally irrelevant and should be simply put aside. What matters is the debate among scientists in scientific journals and conferences. So far I came across a large body of evidence confirming climate change, but did not find any scientific publication or conference proceeding with clear evidence against it. In the letter to the Secretary General of the UN that we are debating, the signatories give their opinion, which deserves respect, but do not present any evidence, nor provide reference to such evidence. Science is a work in progress and… Read more »
Thank you for the reference. However, my trust in mainstream climate science rests basically on evidence, i.e. observations, not on models. The former seem to me convincing, so far. About models, I can easily agree with Nakamura’s criticism. As a matter of fact, I never gave much importance to the precision of predictions. The question to answer is indeed a more basic one: should we expect a crisis in one or two generations time or should we expect it in 100 years or even more? In the first case, we must act now. In the second we can take time… Read more »
Claudio: “When we talk about science, the debate in the media is totally irrelevant and should be simply put aside.” That’s correct. Claudio: “So far I came across a large body of evidence confirming climate change …” Let’s see it. Let’s see your empirical evidence, real measurements, real numbers and real noticeable changes in Earth’s climate that have occurred in the relatively recent past, that point to an almost certain catastrophe some time in the future. As I’m sure you’ll agree, models aren’t evidence, and they have already proven to to be poor at predicting current climate conditions just since… Read more »
(continued) Claudio: “The question to answer is indeed a more basic one: should we expect a crisis in one or two generations time or should we expect it in 100 years or even more? In the first case, we must act now. In the second we can take time in deepening our knowledge before we decide what to do.” More basic even than that is the question of why we should expect a crisis at all. Another basic question is why some people are so fixated on CO2 when it isn’t a primary driver of Earth’s climate, but usually acts… Read more »
Ron – Thank you for your answer. It’s indeed a pleasure to to discuss this question in scientific terms, without ideological bias. BTW, may I ask you what is your expertise in climate science? Science is not an opinion. It is what can be established about nature in an objective way. Therefore the consensus matters. If I were a climate expert, I would have my views and would hold them, whichever they might be, either pro or against climate change. As I am not, consensus means to me that the claim has to be taken seriously. For as much as… Read more »
i) the steep increase of CO2 concentration since 1950 up to a value which is now 40% above the highest ever in the last 800,000 years (this increase is produced by the increase in fossil fuel burning), ii) the corresponding sharp temperature increase in the same time-span. Claudio – you are appearing more and more to be a troll with the only objective to promote misinformation and dissension. CO2 is an essential gas to the cycle of life. Global temps have gone up and down well before the industrial age. There is no computer on earth that can model climate… Read more »
I am really surprised at your reply. What makes you think that I don’t know that “CO2 is an essential gas to the cycle of life”?
I am discussing, because this is the way we make progress. Fortunately, I found somebody with whom to discuss seriously the matter in this blog. It is not you, sorry.
The team coring the icepack in antarctica found layers that indicated a time that 1000 pt/m was recorded by ice. How long ago it was, i never discovered. The idea that C02 isn’t self-leveling is pretty weak. To prove that there is some great concern with C02 in excess of 500 ppm would seem impossible. That is still a minuscule concentration. What science has been offered to indicate what the alarmists say has merit?
I’ve been perusing both sides (yours and Claudio’s) and must interject:
Claudio is not (I repeat, not) a troll; he is a “true believer” and having had many (religious🤣) discussions with such over the years, I’ve found that trying to convince them that they are not worshipping in the Church of the one True Faith is worse than spending time arguing with a troll
Claudio: ” Thank you for your answer. It’s indeed a pleasure to to discuss this question in scientific terms …” We aren’t actually discussing the subject in scientific terms, and I’m surprised that as an “academic” and a “scientist” you would continue to assert the ridiculous notion that scientific truth is reached by consensus. Surely you know that’s wrong. As an “advocate of climate change” who seems to rely on popular votes to determine truth (your comparison of hundreds vs thousands of climate scientists), I’m inclined to question your credentials as a ‘scientist”. You sure don’t talk like a scientist.… Read more »
Ron – This discussion with you I was one of the rare moments I had in the last week to delve into this matter without hitting the wall of ideology and stereotypes. I really appreciated it, believe me, and I would not like to change my mind for your gross misinterpretation of what I say. Ron: “I’m surprised that as an “academic” and a “scientist” you would continue to assert the ridiculous notion that scientific truth is reached by consensus. Surely you know that’s wrong.” You don’t need to tell me that consensus is not necessarily the truth. Indeed, I… Read more »
What about pure facts? They should prevail notwithstanding who says it.
So, Obama wrote the statutes to the CO2 exchange scheme world wide. Obama signed into law Pentagon, Nato, 1st class airplanes to be exempted from CO2 reporting and limitations.
So left is only all ordinary peoples transport, heating, food and jobs on a global scale.
Tell me now what the result of this equation is???
Those who have the agenda to disprove the alarmism, are called all kinds of names by the alarmists who have staked their reputation on the faked data. The 500 who have recanted their former positions are a few of those. Science is science. Consensus is consensus, and cannot be scientific. Just hold on to that.
When al gore announced the demise of the polar bears there were only 7000 living. Today there are over 30000. I love people who make short term predictions on a system that has been in existence for over 4 billion years. They are always wrong.
Actually it was warmer in the 1870’s, but that data was excluded from the study. Tweaking data is a sure sign of illegitimacy. NASA admitted it excluded data that would weaken the argument for apg.
The sea-level mark that was chisled in rocks in Scotland or Great Britain, 400 years ago, is still “sea-level”. There are some places on coastlines that sea-level has changed. Can we really know whether the earth under the sea-level that hasn’t changed in 400 years has receeded down to account for the difference or has the earth under the place You have cited been puckered up by plate motion? We can’t tell. The best data (real measured data) indicates that the earth has gotten .8 degrees warmer since 1880 (we can’t tell if that is real because there were only… Read more »
I live next to the ocean (East Coast, Australia). I look at it every day and it has not risen at all in the 28 years I have lived here. Water is always level, even allowing for tidal movement. How can these un-named islands be getting swamped by rising oceans (as we are told by the Climate Change Cult)? It’s a lie.
I live in BC. Arsonist started over 80% of the fires. The forests are full of dead trees because of the beetle that went across Canada killing the trees. There Was not proper forest management and bleeding hearts stopped the control method of clearing to prevent spread of bug. Long story short the dead trees and arsonists caused the fires. Smokers and lightning and campers caused the rest. Most were deliberately set. My theory is to “prove global warming”. As for flooding, my family lived on the lakes in Muskoka Ontario for over 150 years. We spent 10 years there.… Read more »
So Richard Lindzen, arguably the one who knows more about atmospheric physics than anyone alive shouldn’t be listened to because He’S nOt A cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT?
He was former Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute founded by Charles Koch, chairman of the “board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries, Inc.
doug, questioning people’s integrity based on their professional associations isn’t a valid form of argument, and it does nothing to advance a search for the truth. You will find very few people who are qualified to judge the quality of Richard Lindzen’s work who will dissaggree with the claim that he is one of the top climate scientists in the world.
1000 uni students from various areas of study were counted in the original and totally false claim of 97% of scientists agree with the early ipcc reports.
The letter states that many of the signatories are in related feilds to climate. Surely not unexpected as the warming of earth will affect many sub systems not only climate.
As in my comment above, simply looking at the credentials claimed from those on the list, tells us that almost anyone could have had their name included.
JaakkoKinnari
September 24, 2019 1:37 am
I see only 14
Bud Smith
September 24, 2019 6:21 am
As a Canadian I have to ask …wtf is “French Canada” and “English Canada”??
Anyone with a brain knew that already, that’s why only liberal Democrats are falling for this new Marxist agenda.
Elle
September 24, 2019 8:57 am
Well, that says it all. I seriously doubt the UN will even ALLOW any discussion let alone deviate from their profit model and technocratic agenda which has been working so very well for them inside the ‘duped’ public arena to date.
The people who donated the building for the U.N. in New York, have a large stake in forcing this con job on little people of the world.
Cheryl
September 24, 2019 9:43 am
The first professor worked at Shell. The one from French Canada is pro-fracking. Perhaps the writers of this letter should be researched first for bias.
And should those on the other side be subject to such examination as well? To see how they have been in a position to profit from their statements? That includes all sorts of grants and speech emoluments and free transportation and travel.
Ahhh, unlike the completely unbiased UN who want wealth distribution, Mass Migration & a World Parliment & Climate Change is the ticket. And those who are making billions from carbon credits, they’ll spend it altruistically as philanthropists I’m sure.????
Anyone who attended public school over the last 30 years in the U.S. is biased. The poor children were propagandized every year for 16 years straight. They certainly can’t be trusted to be unbiased.
2 of 3 academics proudly identify as one flavour of another of Marxist. That’s why the students are as you observe.
Lester
September 24, 2019 11:38 am
This is what happens when your generation turns to social media and Comedy Central for the “news”. They get suckered in by the constant guilt coming from their screens and become brainwashed zombies tilting at windmills such as “climate change”, “toxic masculinity” and “systemic racism”. The programming is working, and you’re on the wrong side of history if you dare to speak out against it.
No. We simply repost articles/items of interest. You are welcome to do your own research, however, and we encourage you to do so.
Ray
September 25, 2019 6:36 am
It’s hilarious, all these school kids preaching to us oldies that we fucked up the planet! Back in the 60’s and 70’s not a plastic bottle to be seen it was all glass that were reused, pop bottles taken back to the shop. No plastic bags, loose food was brown paper bags, all sweets were bought in 1/4lb put in a paper bag. Mothers used shopping trolleys to carry heavy stuff or used a linen bag. You walked to school from 5yo to 16yo not jumping into mummy’s 4+4. No McDonald’s or Burger King plastic toys, no polystyrene food boxes… Read more »
Exactly – Very nicely put Ray and these same spoilt brats are trying to guilt trip us ; )
Rouge1
September 25, 2019 7:42 am
It took 500 scientists to let the demonkkkRAT constituency know that they are the most gullible and stupid people on the planet and most still haven’t figured it out lol.
I’m very sorry to tell You, Rouge, but the same fruitcakes STILL won’t believe it. They have been brainwashed in the public schools we forced them to attend to “get an education”. We Forced them.
HarrelcatStPeteFL
September 25, 2019 12:50 pm
-There most certainly is a climate emergency in nearly every corner of the other – the poles are melting faster than anticipated, Greenland is melting faster than anticipated, sea levels have been rising steadily in most locations for 100 years (measured, not modeled); the last 16 years have been the hottest years on record, each one hotter than the last (measured, not modeled); storms are definitely increasing in size and intensity, as are wildfires -Natural factors such as sunspots, earth’s wobbly orbit, etc. in no way account for the accelerating RATE of change -Warming is far faster than ‘predicted’ (fyi,… Read more »
You are repeating pure propaganda promoted by faulty science that has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists who remain untouched and uncorrupted by the United Nations and other global warming extremists.
You’ve been hoaxed. The weather has Not gotten hotter over the last 16 years. Or, wait. I guess it all depends on who you believe. Do You understand the problem yet? Can You see why the great majority of people don’t buy the malarkey?
Damien
September 25, 2019 12:56 pm
All I can say is the world is over populated and is only going to get worse no matter what we do is not going to help earth , nature will take its course and sort it out.
Everyone on earth can stand on a 1’x 3’patch in one city in Florida and a third of the city will be vacant. What we have is a multi-national corporation that has bought up the supplies of fresh water. We WILL have a drinking water shortage, but not simply because there is not enough water. All up and down the coasts, there should be desal plants, driven by solar panels. That is a real (manufactured) issue. The core that melted down to bedrock and is now under the mud at the bottom of the pacific ocean is another real issue.… Read more »
Rick Daly
September 25, 2019 5:07 pm
Oh no ! the whole Democratic Communist World Order was devised with the Climate Change basis , or the One World Order through the Manhattan United Nations could never happen , they just can’t get every Human relocated into the Mega Cities as planned if they don’t get scared of Global Warming ! Now what ? back to the Think Tanks for Global Communism by the UN .
nodgy
September 25, 2019 11:20 pm
Does no one in the comments understand the first thing about science? My PhD is in Theoretical Physics. My work was on the heating of the solar corona Guess what? The Sun has an awful lot to do about the climate as the Sun is the main producer of the energy that warms the earth, and it is not perfectly homogenous in its heating. This is one (big) factor you need to include in any modeling. Another factor (which many of us who worked on models in the past did leave out – I did myself) is the effect that… Read more »
elkoxon
September 26, 2019 2:37 am
Augustinus Johannes “Guus” Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics. Cool story bro
professor Guus Berkhout, a Dutch engineer who served as professor of acoustics, geophysics, and innovation management at the Delft University of Technology.
Berkhout intends to release the full list of 500 signatories in Oslo on Oct. 18.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
I’m always amazed when bright and educated individuals have absolutely no sense of when they are being played. TAKE NOTE–If you are being led to fear a thing you are being played to benefit a hidden agenda. Apparently, many commenters herein have never noticed that it is THE worldwide go-to method to stop descension, along with ridicule, which we read/hear so much of today. It also makes victims of the public. No one on either side is saying that there has not been planetary warming. Thinking people are saying there is not enough information to create global hysteria over it.… Read more »
The list of 500 is a joke. Mostly geologists from the fossil fuel industry, many of them aren’t scientists at all. This is pure propaganda for the fossil fuel agenda, you people need to get a real life. What are you going to tell your grandkids? “I did it so you could consume all of that crap you really don’t need, I’m sorry I sacrificed your future for the consumption of junk, but my bosses told me it was what I should support because I’m in a dirty industry.”
So, in lieu of an intelligent response, you can only browbeat, bully and intimidate with statements like “aren’t scientists at all”. “propaganda for the fossil fuel industry” and “you people need to get a real life”? Sorry, Rich, but you epitomize the irrational hysteria surrounding the climate change movement.
I’m going to tell them about the ‘hysteria-of-the-early-21st-century’, the we-are-all-going-to-die-in-12-yrs fear mongering that faded-out because it was built solely on a profit model constructed by the world’s criminal elites who had AGAIN duped the idiot public into believing they were being truthful because the public preferred do-nothing reassurance by an ‘official authority’ (the MSM) rather than doing the work necessary to identify the entire construction as fear-porn coming from the usual deceivers and liars–those who would be benefiting from it all. I see you’ve put no effort into ‘following the money’ at all. If you had you’d not be so… Read more »
Dale Mullen
November 16, 2019 4:23 pm
Those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The list of 500 “claimed” scientists stating that there is no climate emergency is nearly as ridiculous/irrelevant as the earlier crazed list of 11 ~ 15 k scientists who supposedly stated that there is a climate emergency.
Climate scientists: Publicist? Civil Engineer? Prof. of Economics? Prof. of Energy Politics? PhD in Law? Science Journalist? Author? and many more foolish non-scientific titles.
Holy Chyet! Don’t let this list get out or skeptics will be doomed forever!
wpDiscuz
So I checked a bunch of names and often they were not climate scientists at all
So, what about the ones that ARE?
Only one on that list is and his assertion has been questioned by another climate scientist
How do you know this if you don’t have the list?
I am one of the 500, and I am an astrophysicist with much the same education as the Great Global Warming Guru James Hansen. Most physicists are versatile people, able to work on many scientific problems.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
Thanks for weighing in, Dr. Fulks!! I have also corresponded with other esteemed scientists like Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Will Happer.
My question is why those claiming law degrees, civil engineers, economic degrees, authors, and other unrelated fields are permitted on the list? This makes the whole thing a sham which is extremely unfortunate when trying to elevate the credibility of this group beyond the other nonsense group list recently released.
It also looks bad for those who really are climate scientists, like yourself.
It only shows you don’t know what real science is, only fragment science. Before 1968 we educated academic disciplines in universal basics first, then we took specialisation after.
Only by these universal basic knowledge of math, physics, sun system, its easy to prove there is only a marginal if any influence on the weather by CO2.
Its a financial model of energy controle (wealth) from Central Private Bankers (Al Gore ex CEO Goldman Sachs) without any relation to physical reality.
100 upticks. Climate science is politicised. Facts which don’t fit the political narrative are censored by politicised media. The elites perpetuating fear-driven “global warming” economic policies don’t want the message of sound science to reach the masses. “Build back better ” means culling the middle class and the poor whilst reducing world population. Control of food, and housing via Health and safety laws and cashless society will enable a one world government. That’s the goal.
please note that Dr. Fulks is from Oregon
Dont know if you are serious or just trolling. Not every scientist involved in climate research has a title that has climate in it. That should be a no brainer….
It is clearly stated that they are not all “climate scientists” .
agreed… From the first line of the letter, “…500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields”
Tell me sweetie, is Greta a “climate scientist”? Or Justin Trudeau? Or AOC? I dare say 99% of the people promulgating that ideology have no scientific training whatsoever.
The key point is not the debate in the media or among politicians, the point is the debate among climate scientist. Clearly, from the point of view of science and the reality of the climate crisis, what Greta, Trudeau or AOC say is totally irrelevant. On the contray, what IPCC say is relevant.
Wrong ! the IPCC consists of Non Scientists ! it was thrown together by Clergy of Globalist’s to get the ” Ball Rolling ” for the Great Agenda !
“The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.
Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed…. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.” (https://www.ipcc.ch/) IPCC was created jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the *World Meteorological Organization* (WMO). Its reliability is therefore out of question.
The IPCC is a political body of the UN. It’s website states, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.” The IPCC does not create science. It curates what it wants from sources it chooses to support is preconceived political agenda. As such, it is totally biased toward the UN position and will not entertain any rebuttal from scientists who don’t agree with them.
Plenty of people question it, but their protests are censored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1PS9-oOfRw – UN IPCC Scientist Debunks UN IPCC Lies
Should you also discount those who are “on the payroll”?
Completely false. The IPCC based their assumptions on the Cook et Al report which has now been proven to be complete BS and they also used Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which has also been proven to be complete BS. IPCC are not scientists and do not care about the science, they are politicians who want nothing more than transfer of wealth and a global government. How do they achieve that goal? tell everyone they are going to die in 10 years and scare them into giving up their sovereignty. Esteemed people are quitting the IPCC for the simple fact… Read more »
The IPCC was founded by Maurice Strong. Mr. Strong was a shill for globalist plans and funded by globalists. The IPCC has no real interest in actual climate science but to push an agenda. The $trillions in carbon credits is at the heart of the system
If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.
It is a patently false statement that global warming is “scientifically irrefutable”. You are promoting pure political propaganda that refuses to accept the testimony of hundreds of scientists who say it isn’t true.
My post is from the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009 signed by Trump family and business.
So, provide the actual post or a link to where it can be found.
https://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-climate-action-new-york-times/
The ad in this post was sponsored by a defunct, obscure website that was ‘live’ for a couple of months and thus there is no authenticity behind the petition or the signers? This post itself was not “from the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009” as you stated, but from the ultra-liberal climate justice website Grist.org? Even Grist states, “None of the signers that Grist interviewed this week could recall who had organized the letter or knew who had asked Trump to sign. The website of the group listed on the ad, businessleaders4environmentalchange.us, is now defunct, and no information was… Read more »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/09/in-2009-donald-trump-endorsed-action-on-climate-change-three-months-later-he-disparaged-it/
Dude, this references/parrots from the same article at Grist.org. Still no factual information. This is a nothing-burger.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Grist (originally Grist Magazine; also referred to as Grist.org) is an American non-profit online magazine that has been publishing environmental news and commentary since 1999. Grist is a Pro-Science magazine that focuses on environmental issues. technocracy.news (Some sources might not be added based on a variety of factors)
(Click on the links below at your own risk. We have not verified them and some may lead to undesirable websites)
The average global temperature rose by 1 deg C in the past 80 years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) Are you aware of any counter-evidence?
Though there are hundreds of scientists denying global warming and climate change, there are indeed thousands that confirm it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#/media/File:Climate_science_opinion_graph_3Path.svg)
a) Wikipedia is no source of authority on anything, especially climate science
b) “hundreds of scientists denying global warming” – If this is the case, then the “science is not settled”, is it? You
Using Wikipedia as a reference speaks for itself. Automatic down vote. Sorry. Do you realize anyone can contribute to wiki articles?
Yeah been hearing that for the last 100 years, as for your comment that the science is irrefutable? you do realize you are writing that comment on an article which then context is of scientists refuting the current narrative right? You’re just proving how ignorant the climatards really are with that comment lol
What about the bullet points, Fanf? If the bullet points are true I, personally, don’t care what the signatories’ titles are.
+There is no climate emergency
+Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
+Warming is far slower than predicted
+Climate policy relies on inadequate models
+CO2 is not a pollutant.
+Global warming has not increased natural disasters
+Policy must respect scientific and economic realities
In fact, if there was a small amount of warming, it would save humanity from a FAR more dangerous situation, another Ice Age. THAT would cause catastrophic conditions, world wide famine with conditions preventing any crops for food of both humans and animals.
It’s called the Eddy Minimum, and we are at the beginning of it due to coinciding cycles of low sunspot activity. Sunspot activity also drives CME s, magnetic variations in the planet’s core; volcanism and earthquake activity, therefore resulting tsunamis.
Some points are right, while others are wrong. + There no real emergency right now, right. However there is a likely risk of an emergency in a few decades. + Natural factors cause warming, right. However anthropogenic ones exceed the former by far in present days. + Whether critical tempreratures will be reached in one of five decades is immaterial. It is still necessary to take action now. + I am not in a position to validate climatoligical models. However, since CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is now over 30% higher than it has ever been in the past 800,000… Read more »
Read up on closed systems Claudio. They tend to self correct, i.e. more co2 more plant growth which consumes more co2 and lowers its levels. Takes a long time though. I have read that the most prevalent compound in our atmosphere is water vapor, i.e. clouds. It has a markedly greater influence on energy absorption from the sun which also is subject to cyclical variation. CO2 is great for the UN as it gives the masses a mythical escape from the inevitable demise of humanity and a nifty means to generate income primarily from the US which they dearly love.… Read more »
Isaac -There most certainly is a climate emergency in nearly every corner of the other – the poles are melting faster than anticipated, Greenland is melting faster than anticipated, sea levels have been rising steadily in most locations for 100 years (measured, not modeled); the last 16 years have been the hottest years on record, each one hotter than the last (measured, not modeled); storms are definitely increasing in size and intensity, as are wildfires -Natural factors such as sunspots, earth’s wobbly orbit, etc. in no way account for the accelerating RATE of change -Warming is far faster than ‘predicted’… Read more »
Again, you are repeating pure propaganda promoted by faulty science that has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists who remain untouched and uncorrupted by the United Nations and other global warming extremists.
For a fruitful discussion, we must understand the viewpoint of the climate change deniers. When they say that there is no emergency, there is something true in it. There is indeed no emergency RIGHT NOW. As a matter of fact, we could cope with the temperature increase and the extreme meteorological phenomena that occurred so far. The real emergency will be when sea level will rise by 50 cm or more – wiping out the atolls in the Pacific and largely damaging the cities located along the shores – and when the global conveyor belt ocean current system will stop.… Read more »
The sea levels are not rising, and considering that the debate over climate science is far from over, you cannot justify turning the entire world economy upside-down for an unproven theory.
Thank you very much indeed for your comment! It makes me aware of an important point, that the advocates of climate change (I am one of them) miss when they enter the debate with the general public. People are not moved by the fate of the polar bears or by the melting of glaciers. They are not concerned by the increase in sea level, nowadays still too low to be perceived. People are not concerned about what might happen in the future, they are instead concerned about what may happen now. They fear indeed that their way of life and… Read more »
Claudio – You won’t like that I say this, but your opinions are based on your ignorance, not facts. The underlying data of global warming science has been riddled with corruption, deception and political bias. The “inventor” of the so-called “hockey stick”, Michael Mann, was humiliated in Canada’s Supreme Court by Dr. Tim Ball, where Mann’s data was proven fraudulent. Global warming hysteria is fraudulent from the beginning. In the 1970s, the same people warned of Global Cooling – caused by man – that was just as fraudulent. So science just said “Oops” and took the polar opposite position all… Read more »
Patrick – I understand that we are on opposite sides in this discussion. Then, allow me to widen the discussion to science in general. As an academic by profession – although not in the domain of climate – I know that academics are not better than ordinary people. Sometimes they make mistakes or cheat or have agendas – maybe to please those who finance them. However, academics belong to an open community with a fierce internal competition. If someone has an agenda, there are others with an opposite agenda or maybe no agenda at all. They will provide different evidence… Read more »
Theory: “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” (Dictionary.com)
As long as there are world-class scientists disputing global warming theory, the science is NOT settled. If the historical data has been faked or manipulated, if the computer models used to process the data are arbitrarily changed to support pre-determined conclusions, then the science is no science at all. Every single dissenting scientist should be allowed into the debate. Instead, they are ridiculed, shamed, browbeaten, slandered and ignored.
When we talk about science, the debate in the media is totally irrelevant and should be simply put aside. What matters is the debate among scientists in scientific journals and conferences. So far I came across a large body of evidence confirming climate change, but did not find any scientific publication or conference proceeding with clear evidence against it. In the letter to the Secretary General of the UN that we are debating, the signatories give their opinion, which deserves respect, but do not present any evidence, nor provide reference to such evidence. Science is a work in progress and… Read more »
Go argue with Dr. Mototaka Nakamura: A Climate Modeller Spills the Beans
Thank you for the reference. However, my trust in mainstream climate science rests basically on evidence, i.e. observations, not on models. The former seem to me convincing, so far. About models, I can easily agree with Nakamura’s criticism. As a matter of fact, I never gave much importance to the precision of predictions. The question to answer is indeed a more basic one: should we expect a crisis in one or two generations time or should we expect it in 100 years or even more? In the first case, we must act now. In the second we can take time… Read more »
Claudio: “When we talk about science, the debate in the media is totally irrelevant and should be simply put aside.” That’s correct. Claudio: “So far I came across a large body of evidence confirming climate change …” Let’s see it. Let’s see your empirical evidence, real measurements, real numbers and real noticeable changes in Earth’s climate that have occurred in the relatively recent past, that point to an almost certain catastrophe some time in the future. As I’m sure you’ll agree, models aren’t evidence, and they have already proven to to be poor at predicting current climate conditions just since… Read more »
(continued) Claudio: “The question to answer is indeed a more basic one: should we expect a crisis in one or two generations time or should we expect it in 100 years or even more? In the first case, we must act now. In the second we can take time in deepening our knowledge before we decide what to do.” More basic even than that is the question of why we should expect a crisis at all. Another basic question is why some people are so fixated on CO2 when it isn’t a primary driver of Earth’s climate, but usually acts… Read more »
Ron – Thank you for your answer. It’s indeed a pleasure to to discuss this question in scientific terms, without ideological bias. BTW, may I ask you what is your expertise in climate science? Science is not an opinion. It is what can be established about nature in an objective way. Therefore the consensus matters. If I were a climate expert, I would have my views and would hold them, whichever they might be, either pro or against climate change. As I am not, consensus means to me that the claim has to be taken seriously. For as much as… Read more »
i) the steep increase of CO2 concentration since 1950 up to a value which is now 40% above the highest ever in the last 800,000 years (this increase is produced by the increase in fossil fuel burning), ii) the corresponding sharp temperature increase in the same time-span. Claudio – you are appearing more and more to be a troll with the only objective to promote misinformation and dissension. CO2 is an essential gas to the cycle of life. Global temps have gone up and down well before the industrial age. There is no computer on earth that can model climate… Read more »
I am really surprised at your reply. What makes you think that I don’t know that “CO2 is an essential gas to the cycle of life”?
I am discussing, because this is the way we make progress. Fortunately, I found somebody with whom to discuss seriously the matter in this blog. It is not you, sorry.
The team coring the icepack in antarctica found layers that indicated a time that 1000 pt/m was recorded by ice. How long ago it was, i never discovered. The idea that C02 isn’t self-leveling is pretty weak. To prove that there is some great concern with C02 in excess of 500 ppm would seem impossible. That is still a minuscule concentration. What science has been offered to indicate what the alarmists say has merit?
I’ve been perusing both sides (yours and Claudio’s) and must interject:
Claudio is not (I repeat, not) a troll; he is a “true believer” and having had many (religious🤣) discussions with such over the years, I’ve found that trying to convince them that they are not worshipping in the Church of the one True Faith is worse than spending time arguing with a troll
Claudio: ” Thank you for your answer. It’s indeed a pleasure to to discuss this question in scientific terms …” We aren’t actually discussing the subject in scientific terms, and I’m surprised that as an “academic” and a “scientist” you would continue to assert the ridiculous notion that scientific truth is reached by consensus. Surely you know that’s wrong. As an “advocate of climate change” who seems to rely on popular votes to determine truth (your comparison of hundreds vs thousands of climate scientists), I’m inclined to question your credentials as a ‘scientist”. You sure don’t talk like a scientist.… Read more »
Ron – This discussion with you I was one of the rare moments I had in the last week to delve into this matter without hitting the wall of ideology and stereotypes. I really appreciated it, believe me, and I would not like to change my mind for your gross misinterpretation of what I say. Ron: “I’m surprised that as an “academic” and a “scientist” you would continue to assert the ridiculous notion that scientific truth is reached by consensus. Surely you know that’s wrong.” You don’t need to tell me that consensus is not necessarily the truth. Indeed, I… Read more »
What about pure facts? They should prevail notwithstanding who says it.
So, Obama wrote the statutes to the CO2 exchange scheme world wide. Obama signed into law Pentagon, Nato, 1st class airplanes to be exempted from CO2 reporting and limitations.
So left is only all ordinary peoples transport, heating, food and jobs on a global scale.
Tell me now what the result of this equation is???
Does science ever get “settled” or is it always studied?
Those who have the agenda to disprove the alarmism, are called all kinds of names by the alarmists who have staked their reputation on the faked data. The 500 who have recanted their former positions are a few of those. Science is science. Consensus is consensus, and cannot be scientific. Just hold on to that.
When al gore announced the demise of the polar bears there were only 7000 living. Today there are over 30000. I love people who make short term predictions on a system that has been in existence for over 4 billion years. They are always wrong.
Plus the Greenland ice sheet is currently thickening.
Actually it was warmer in the 1870’s, but that data was excluded from the study. Tweaking data is a sure sign of illegitimacy. NASA admitted it excluded data that would weaken the argument for apg.
The sea-level mark that was chisled in rocks in Scotland or Great Britain, 400 years ago, is still “sea-level”. There are some places on coastlines that sea-level has changed. Can we really know whether the earth under the sea-level that hasn’t changed in 400 years has receeded down to account for the difference or has the earth under the place You have cited been puckered up by plate motion? We can’t tell. The best data (real measured data) indicates that the earth has gotten .8 degrees warmer since 1880 (we can’t tell if that is real because there were only… Read more »
Imagine believing anything Democrats have to say.
Cannot understand what the Democrats, or the Repubblicans, have to do in this discussion.
They wish to suppress the whole discussion as “misinformation” .
So, tell us what they are if you’ve done the research. Provide links to everything– if you’re not a troll.
We all know trolls never return and never, ever provide evidence to support their statements. Their goal is to obstruct truth.
I live next to the ocean (East Coast, Australia). I look at it every day and it has not risen at all in the 28 years I have lived here. Water is always level, even allowing for tidal movement. How can these un-named islands be getting swamped by rising oceans (as we are told by the Climate Change Cult)? It’s a lie.
Maybe we should discuss this by the end of the century, hoping to still be there!:)
I live in BC. Arsonist started over 80% of the fires. The forests are full of dead trees because of the beetle that went across Canada killing the trees. There Was not proper forest management and bleeding hearts stopped the control method of clearing to prevent spread of bug. Long story short the dead trees and arsonists caused the fires. Smokers and lightning and campers caused the rest. Most were deliberately set. My theory is to “prove global warming”. As for flooding, my family lived on the lakes in Muskoka Ontario for over 150 years. We spent 10 years there.… Read more »
I also have lived next to the ocean for 71 years on the east coast of Australia. I agree with you Shane.
“for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors” The list of names are the NATIONAL AMBASSADORS.
What? Like Pakauri or greta?
We could only hope to have the likes of Bill Nye the truckdriver/esthetician/ science guy on our side!????
So Richard Lindzen, arguably the one who knows more about atmospheric physics than anyone alive shouldn’t be listened to because He’S nOt A cLiMaTe ScIeNtIsT?
He was former Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute founded by Charles Koch, chairman of the “board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries, Inc.
doug, questioning people’s integrity based on their professional associations isn’t a valid form of argument, and it does nothing to advance a search for the truth. You will find very few people who are qualified to judge the quality of Richard Lindzen’s work who will dissaggree with the claim that he is one of the top climate scientists in the world.
1000 uni students from various areas of study were counted in the original and totally false claim of 97% of scientists agree with the early ipcc reports.
The letter states that many of the signatories are in related feilds to climate. Surely not unexpected as the warming of earth will affect many sub systems not only climate.
Neither is Al Gore…
Exactly how many are in a bunch? And how frequent is often. You seem particularly inept at making precise statements.
As in my comment above, simply looking at the credentials claimed from those on the list, tells us that almost anyone could have had their name included.
I see only 14
As a Canadian I have to ask …wtf is “French Canada” and “English Canada”??
French Canada is Quebec, where French is the main language and English is secondary.
Much more immigration & English will be secondary ACROSS Canada.
French and English Ambassadors from Canada
Anyone with a brain knew that already, that’s why only liberal Democrats are falling for this new Marxist agenda.
Well, that says it all. I seriously doubt the UN will even ALLOW any discussion let alone deviate from their profit model and technocratic agenda which has been working so very well for them inside the ‘duped’ public arena to date.
The people who donated the building for the U.N. in New York, have a large stake in forcing this con job on little people of the world.
The first professor worked at Shell. The one from French Canada is pro-fracking. Perhaps the writers of this letter should be researched first for bias.
Perhaps we should examine you for your bias.
And should those on the other side be subject to such examination as well? To see how they have been in a position to profit from their statements? That includes all sorts of grants and speech emoluments and free transportation and travel.
So do both sides get the same scrutiny or not?
Ahhh, unlike the completely unbiased UN who want wealth distribution, Mass Migration & a World Parliment & Climate Change is the ticket. And those who are making billions from carbon credits, they’ll spend it altruistically as philanthropists I’m sure.????
Anyone who attended public school over the last 30 years in the U.S. is biased. The poor children were propagandized every year for 16 years straight. They certainly can’t be trusted to be unbiased.
2 of 3 academics proudly identify as one flavour of another of Marxist. That’s why the students are as you observe.
This is what happens when your generation turns to social media and Comedy Central for the “news”. They get suckered in by the constant guilt coming from their screens and become brainwashed zombies tilting at windmills such as “climate change”, “toxic masculinity” and “systemic racism”. The programming is working, and you’re on the wrong side of history if you dare to speak out against it.
Can’t seem to find the actual list of 500 names…
Dale, in case you’re still looking:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf
Technocracy could you please supply the names of all the 500 scientists so I can check out their qualifications ?
No. We simply repost articles/items of interest. You are welcome to do your own research, however, and we encourage you to do so.
It’s hilarious, all these school kids preaching to us oldies that we fucked up the planet! Back in the 60’s and 70’s not a plastic bottle to be seen it was all glass that were reused, pop bottles taken back to the shop. No plastic bags, loose food was brown paper bags, all sweets were bought in 1/4lb put in a paper bag. Mothers used shopping trolleys to carry heavy stuff or used a linen bag. You walked to school from 5yo to 16yo not jumping into mummy’s 4+4. No McDonald’s or Burger King plastic toys, no polystyrene food boxes… Read more »
Exactly – Very nicely put Ray and these same spoilt brats are trying to guilt trip us ; )
It took 500 scientists to let the demonkkkRAT constituency know that they are the most gullible and stupid people on the planet and most still haven’t figured it out lol.
I’m very sorry to tell You, Rouge, but the same fruitcakes STILL won’t believe it. They have been brainwashed in the public schools we forced them to attend to “get an education”. We Forced them.
-There most certainly is a climate emergency in nearly every corner of the other – the poles are melting faster than anticipated, Greenland is melting faster than anticipated, sea levels have been rising steadily in most locations for 100 years (measured, not modeled); the last 16 years have been the hottest years on record, each one hotter than the last (measured, not modeled); storms are definitely increasing in size and intensity, as are wildfires -Natural factors such as sunspots, earth’s wobbly orbit, etc. in no way account for the accelerating RATE of change -Warming is far faster than ‘predicted’ (fyi,… Read more »
You are repeating pure propaganda promoted by faulty science that has been thoroughly debunked by legitimate scientists who remain untouched and uncorrupted by the United Nations and other global warming extremists.
You’ve been hoaxed. The weather has Not gotten hotter over the last 16 years. Or, wait. I guess it all depends on who you believe. Do You understand the problem yet? Can You see why the great majority of people don’t buy the malarkey?
All I can say is the world is over populated and is only going to get worse no matter what we do is not going to help earth , nature will take its course and sort it out.
Of course, you realize that we are already facing a demographic winter all around the world, right? Articles like this: https://www.dw.com/en/global-population-decline-will-hit-china-hard/a-50326522
Everyone on earth can stand on a 1’x 3’patch in one city in Florida and a third of the city will be vacant. What we have is a multi-national corporation that has bought up the supplies of fresh water. We WILL have a drinking water shortage, but not simply because there is not enough water. All up and down the coasts, there should be desal plants, driven by solar panels. That is a real (manufactured) issue. The core that melted down to bedrock and is now under the mud at the bottom of the pacific ocean is another real issue.… Read more »
Oh no ! the whole Democratic Communist World Order was devised with the Climate Change basis , or the One World Order through the Manhattan United Nations could never happen , they just can’t get every Human relocated into the Mega Cities as planned if they don’t get scared of Global Warming ! Now what ? back to the Think Tanks for Global Communism by the UN .
Does no one in the comments understand the first thing about science? My PhD is in Theoretical Physics. My work was on the heating of the solar corona Guess what? The Sun has an awful lot to do about the climate as the Sun is the main producer of the energy that warms the earth, and it is not perfectly homogenous in its heating. This is one (big) factor you need to include in any modeling. Another factor (which many of us who worked on models in the past did leave out – I did myself) is the effect that… Read more »
Augustinus Johannes “Guus” Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer. He has worked for Shell in the oil- and gas industry and served as professor of acoustics. Cool story bro
Where is the list of the 500 scientists?
Technocracy.News merely reprinted the letter. If you want to know more, you will have to dig for it.
Sesrched, including the official letter itself, and there’s no mention to 500 scientists, only the names sighed in the letter.
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf
Seems like the claim for 500 scientists is BS.
Why don’t you lift a finger and email the professor whose email is in plain sight at the top of the letter?
professor Guus Berkhout, a Dutch engineer who served as professor of acoustics, geophysics, and innovation management at the Delft University of Technology.
Berkhout intends to release the full list of 500 signatories in Oslo on Oct. 18.
Didn’t count them all, but it looks like 500 to me.
http://wizard.dynu.com/European-Climate-Declaration.pdf
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/26/co2-is-plant-food-australian-group-signs-international-declaration-denying-climate-science
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
Much more here http://www.green-agenda.com/
I’m always amazed when bright and educated individuals have absolutely no sense of when they are being played. TAKE NOTE–If you are being led to fear a thing you are being played to benefit a hidden agenda. Apparently, many commenters herein have never noticed that it is THE worldwide go-to method to stop descension, along with ridicule, which we read/hear so much of today. It also makes victims of the public. No one on either side is saying that there has not been planetary warming. Thinking people are saying there is not enough information to create global hysteria over it.… Read more »
The list of 500 is a joke. Mostly geologists from the fossil fuel industry, many of them aren’t scientists at all. This is pure propaganda for the fossil fuel agenda, you people need to get a real life. What are you going to tell your grandkids? “I did it so you could consume all of that crap you really don’t need, I’m sorry I sacrificed your future for the consumption of junk, but my bosses told me it was what I should support because I’m in a dirty industry.”
So, in lieu of an intelligent response, you can only browbeat, bully and intimidate with statements like “aren’t scientists at all”. “propaganda for the fossil fuel industry” and “you people need to get a real life”? Sorry, Rich, but you epitomize the irrational hysteria surrounding the climate change movement.
I’m going to tell them about the ‘hysteria-of-the-early-21st-century’, the we-are-all-going-to-die-in-12-yrs fear mongering that faded-out because it was built solely on a profit model constructed by the world’s criminal elites who had AGAIN duped the idiot public into believing they were being truthful because the public preferred do-nothing reassurance by an ‘official authority’ (the MSM) rather than doing the work necessary to identify the entire construction as fear-porn coming from the usual deceivers and liars–those who would be benefiting from it all. I see you’ve put no effort into ‘following the money’ at all. If you had you’d not be so… Read more »
Those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The list of 500 “claimed” scientists stating that there is no climate emergency is nearly as ridiculous/irrelevant as the earlier crazed list of 11 ~ 15 k scientists who supposedly stated that there is a climate emergency.
Climate scientists: Publicist? Civil Engineer? Prof. of Economics? Prof. of Energy Politics? PhD in Law? Science Journalist? Author? and many more foolish non-scientific titles.
Holy Chyet! Don’t let this list get out or skeptics will be doomed forever!
[…] не надо спасать», — так озаглавили свою декларацию 500 специалистов в области физики […]