There is no climate emergency

royboy

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2001
46,831
32,262
1
Lewisville, NC
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
12,785
6,385
1
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts



The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a Netherlands-based1 climate science denial group founded in 2019 by retired professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and journalist Marcel Crok.2 Its principal view is that “there is no climate emergency.”3

According to Dutch broadcaster KRO-NCRV Pointer, the 800 “scientists, scholars, and professionals” that support CLINTEL have “conducted little to no climate research.”4 DeSmog analysis has found that the list of signatories includes a commercial fisherman, a retired chemist, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists.5

The organisation has close ties to Forum voor Democratie, the main Dutch nationalist party, and its leader Thierry Baudet, who has quoted statements by CLINTEL in the country’s House of Representatives.6

Various members of CLINTEL’s list of ambassadors, and its extended list of signatories, have connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.7 All three organisations are members of the Koch-funded Atlas Network.8 9


HA HA HA - What a Joke. @royboy, the queen of the looney bin, wacko, nut job fringe
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

maypole

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2022
1,837
767
1
I don’t personally know whether there is climate change or not, but I choose to believe those who make it their professional life to investigate the question, not some amateurs, ideologs or paid shills for the oil industry. In this case, it’s all of the above.
 

2lion70

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jul 1, 2004
17,380
6,107
1
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

I don't buy that swill you posted. Lots of denials with no supporting data. Statements like the one on climate constantly changing is used to indicate we are just in a 'normal state' - no facts to support.
There were lots of tobacco deniers supported by the tobacco industry that put out tripe like this, bought and paid for with the lives and health of millions.
Not a good or persuasive hit piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,741
7,429
1
I don’t personally know whether there is climate change or not, but I choose to believe those who make it their professional life to investigate the question, not some amateurs, ideologs or paid shills for the oil industry. In this case, it’s all of the above.
yep all the people supporting climate change are individual thinkers researching on their own dimes.
You do have to wonder though, if climate change, rising seas, CO2 emissions are such a danger, why do folks lime Obama, Kerry, gates, Bezos, diCaprio all have multiple homes, some right on the ocean, fly private planes all over the globe , while chastising the rest of us for using gasoline in our cars.......and don't forget, it was John Kerry, our energy czar, who said that we could get our emissions to zero and it would have no effect on climate change. I don't understand, maypole, why you won't listen to the czar!!!
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
27,167
41,373
1
I don’t personally know whether there is climate change or not, but I choose to believe those who make it their professional life to investigate the question, not some amateurs, ideologs or paid shills for the oil industry. In this case, it’s all of the above.
Extremists like Gaypole think Al Gore and John Kerry truly believe in man-made climate change, but then still have MASSIVE carbon footprints. They just aren’t smart enough to see through the ruse.
 

MarkPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,670
2,333
1
Good grief, some of you are so fricking dense. The information is available for any of you to view. There is no climate emergency. There is NOTHING man can do to significantly impact climate. Climate changes. Climate is currently changing. End of debate right there. The extent that man somehow controls climate IS up for debate and I'd say follow the money for your answer.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
109,264
60,092
1
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

how dare you?! why will you not take climate direction from a teenage girl person?

giphy.gif
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
108,030
62,641
1
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts


how-dare-you-greta-thunberg.gif
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
27,167
41,373
1
You’re nothing but a corporate ass kisser, so we know what your opinion is and what it’s worth.
Climate alarmists like John Kerry have private jets and mansions. They make money scaring suckers like you and you lap it up like a dog does shit. They don’t believe in it but you do. It would be hilarious if you weren’t wasting taxpayer money, killing jobs, and shifting power to China.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,741
7,429
1
I don't buy that swill you posted. Lots of denials with no supporting data. Statements like the one on climate constantly changing is used to indicate we are just in a 'normal state' - no facts to support.
There were lots of tobacco deniers supported by the tobacco industry that put out tripe like this, bought and paid for with the lives and health of millions.
Not a good or persuasive hit piece.
well, I know this won't satisfy you, but there were forest fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, rising waters and drought long before the rise in use of automobiles. It's kind of duplicitous to say, all of a sudden, climate change is causing these effects today.
I'm old enough to remember that this entire movement started in the late 80's with al gore pushing global warming. He and "scientists" pushed out all their models showing the negative effects on the earth. The models turned out to be wrong...the prognosticated disasters didn't happen. So, global warming became climate change.....can't go wrong there....the climate always changes. In fact, back in the 70's the prognostications of the "scientists" was the coming of a new ice age. But, you know what, climate changed.
You want data. go outside...some days it's hot, other days cold. Some years we have lots of hurricanes (climate change) this year we're below average (climate change). Some years, above average snow (climate change), others not so much snow (climate change). See a pattern here?
Now I may be wrong, but I don't think anybody on this board is a climate scientist. But we do have democrats and republicans. For some reason, the democrats all seem to believe the democrats positions on climate. Not surprisingly republicans seem to fall in line on republican positions.......seems to be the same with scientists. For every climate change expert, there is an equal and opposite expert calling bunk. So the settled science for one group doesn't seem to be as settled as for the other. Who's right?? Damned if I know!!!
 

indynittany

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2005
5,851
7,136
1
I don’t personally know whether there is climate change or not, but I choose to believe those who make it their professional life to investigate the question, not some amateurs, ideologs or paid shills for the oil industry. In this case, it’s all of the above.
You can't be that easily duped! :rolleyes:

Why were recorded temperatures higher in the 1930s than anytime since?
 

ChiTownLion

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
32,265
39,393
1
I don’t personally know whether there is climate change or not, but I choose to believe those who make it their professional life to investigate the question, not some amateurs, ideologs or paid shills for the oil industry. In this case, it’s all of the above.
People who are on the fence tend to side with the alarmists for the reasons you stated.

Similar to the virus - when nobody knows what's going on, our instinct is to defer to "the experts."

Problem is, "the experts" have turned "science" into political science with a one-size-fits-all approach (mandates) to a complex problem. Fauci lied to us about the origin of the virus (wet markets vs biolab), Birx lied to us about "two weeks to slow the spread," Fauci lied to us about masks repeatedly, Fauci lied to us about vaccines and even the gain-of-function research that created this whole mess in the first place. TBH, I still don't know if I want the whole truth to come out because I suspect it will turn the whole world against us.

So why on Earth should we gamble our entire economy and standard of living on some unproven green theories about climate change? In the 1970s, science concluded we were doomed to another ice age. In the 2007, Al Gore warned that the ice caps would be gone by 2014. Never happened. In fact the ice caps have more ice today than they did when Gore made the prediction in 2007. CNN producers were caught on camera saying they would maintain high ratings after Trump by fear-mongering the population into thinking we were on the brink of a "climate emergency."

It's nice that some people still trust the government. "What's their motive to lie," people often ask. There are a lot of reasons to lie, but I think it comes down to this. America started the industrial age which led to an explosion of growth in technology, innovation, quality of life and duration of life. There were some serious growing pains along the way, such as extreme pollution in our water, air and soil. We've learned how to mitigate this kind of pollution and now enjoy the cleanest air and water in the last 100 years.

But Western nations, in my opinion, are scared shitless by the idea of 6 billion people coming out of poverty through the use of fossil fuels. What's to stop China and India from pumping ungodly amounts of dirty carbon into the air with coal? Or dumping billions of gallons of wastewater into our oceans? Or plowing the Amazon rainforest for livestock to graze? Or just burning mountains of toxic trash into the atmosphere? They had to create some kind of panic about a global extinction event to keep these third-world countries in check. So they came up with the Paris Accord where all the developed nations would agree to transition into green energy and incentivize third-world countries to follow our lead.

So, just as it may be in America's best interest to believe Anthony Fauci's lies about coronavirus coming from the wet markets, it may also be in our best interest to deprive third-world countries of cheap energy. The only way to do that is by selling the world a lie that CO2 will be the end of us all.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,741
7,429
1
You’re nothing but a corporate ass kisser, so we know what your opinion is and what it’s worth.
I assume then no corporations will be involved in the production, sale, installation or maintenance of all the renewable stuff in the IRA. Grandmothers will be manufacturing the stuff at night in their basements...come on man
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

NC.Lion

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2021
743
1,157
1
I love how democrats are always the first to jump on every natural disaster and say it’s due to climate change, yet they refuse to focus there have been no hurricanes to date this season (maybe one tropical depression which is low at this point) and a lot of thr south has had lower temperatures than normal the last few weeks.
Doesn’t really fit their agenda.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,741
7,429
1
I love how democrats are always the first to jump on every natural disaster and say it’s due to climate change, yet they refuse to focus there have been no hurricanes to date this season (maybe one tropical depression which is low at this point) and a lot of thr south has had lower temperatures than normal the last few weeks.
Doesn’t really fit their agenda.
yea, but you might have forgotten, we just passed the IRA with about $380 billion in climate related expenses. So as you might expect, it's already having a positive impact on climate! (TIC)
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,258
24,248
1
The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a Netherlands-based1 climate science denial group founded in 2019 by retired professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and journalist Marcel Crok.2 Its principal view is that “there is no climate emergency.”3

According to Dutch broadcaster KRO-NCRV Pointer, the 800 “scientists, scholars, and professionals” that support CLINTEL have “conducted little to no climate research.”4 DeSmog analysis has found that the list of signatories includes a commercial fisherman, a retired chemist, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists.5

The organisation has close ties to Forum voor Democratie, the main Dutch nationalist party, and its leader Thierry Baudet, who has quoted statements by CLINTEL in the country’s House of Representatives.6

Various members of CLINTEL’s list of ambassadors, and its extended list of signatories, have connections to libertarian free-market groups with a history of climate science denial, including the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.7 All three organisations are members of the Koch-funded Atlas Network.8 9


HA HA HA - What a Joke. @royboy, the queen of the looney bin, wacko, nut job fringe
What, specifically, do you do to help with this "crisis?"

Which EV do you drive?
Do you keep your thermostat at the DOE guidelines of 78 to 85 in the summer?
Do you have solar panels?
Do you pay extra to your utility to ensure you're getting "green" electricity?
 

pawrestlersintn

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2013
16,258
24,248
1
I don't buy that swill you posted. Lots of denials with no supporting data. Statements like the one on climate constantly changing is used to indicate we are just in a 'normal state' - no facts to support.
There were lots of tobacco deniers supported by the tobacco industry that put out tripe like this, bought and paid for with the lives and health of millions.
Not a good or persuasive hit piece.
What, specifically, do you do to help with this "crisis?"

Which EV do you drive?
Do you keep your thermostat at the DOE guidelines of 78 to 85 in the summer?
Do you have solar panels?
Do you pay extra to your utility to ensure you're getting "green" electricity?
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,942
1
I agree with the premise but wasn't that a 2017 article? We have a home in NC on the water and I thought we got whacked a couple times in the last fews years. Dead on once. Ocean Isle Beach NC
Yes that's from 2017. IIRC the climate people were predicting catastrophe through an 18 year hurricane drought. Finally we got a couple of big Hurricanes and the alarmists said I told you so.
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
27,167
41,373
1

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,457
7,979
1
You’re nothing but a corporate ass kisser, so we know what your opinion is and what it’s worth.

Like you, I too wouldn't consider myself super-educated on the supposed science of global warming (or "climate change" or whatever).

But the one thing that is clear to this objective observer is that the big money is on the side of pushing global warming alarm - not on the side of denying it.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,942
1
Like you, I too wouldn't consider myself super-educated on the supposed science of global warming (or "climate change" or whatever).

But the one thing that is clear to this objective observer is that the big money is on the side of pushing global warming alarm - not on the side of denying it.
If the government pays scientists to study the threats from climate change it's in their best interest to keep reporting threats from climate change.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,959
38,942
1
(Posted this in thread started by @PaoliLion about how few Republicans believe in science, but it deserves it's own thread.)

There is no climate emergency


A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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 global policy tools. They blow up 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 crops 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate 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 re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

Epilogue

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

I think we should be concerned about climate change regardless if the change is due to natural variation or man.

The question is what to do. We can do things like build higher sea walls, cut fire breaks in the forrest, and avoid building in flood basins. Those things make sense. We can also continue to invest in alternative energy sources. I'm OK with that too.

I'm not OK with severe regulations on fossil fuels that hurt our economy and standard of living. Spending hundreds of $billions on things that might reduce global temperatures by 9/10,000th of 1% makes absolutely no sense.
 

Latest posts