Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

6
3

No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN

By Onvacation follow Onvacation   2019 Sep 28, 8:59am 2,446 views   41 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    





On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, some 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Read the full document and list of names here:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...

« First    « Previous    Comments 2 - 41 of 41    Last »

2   komputodo   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 28, 9:31am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says



On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, some 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Read the full document and list of names here:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...

Lets hope it was also impassioned and included some emojis.
3   HEYYOU   ignore (47)   2019 Sep 28, 2:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Stupid scum need to tell the military they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to global warming & sea level rise.
To make changes it will take Republican tax dollars. Yes,you are paying for AGW.
4   finehoe   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 28, 3:10pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

You anti-science twits are pathetic. Who are these "500 scientists"? The link lists 14, the first of which is an oil company employee and rest, with one exception, aren't even climate scientists. And the one guy who is, was reprimanded by MIT for lying.
5   Ceffer   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 28, 3:13pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

finehoe says
You anti-religion twits are pathetic. Who are these "500 scientists"? The link lists 14, the first of which is an oil company employee and rest, with one exception, aren't even climate scientists. And the one guy who is, was reprimanded by MIT for lying.


There, fixed it.
6   Tim Aurora   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 28, 3:29pm     ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

500 naysayers ver 50000 who believe that. But the right-winger continue to believe in it
7   NoCoupForYou   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 28, 5:15pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

When is Michael Mann going to conform to Scientific Standards and release the numbers behind the Hockey Stick Graph?

Everytime they get to discovery in his libel suits, he runs away when the judge rules he has to provide the numbers behind his model. This is the SECOND time this has happened.
8   rocketjoe79   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 28, 5:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The thing I love about Patnet is it forces me to examine alternate points of view and do my own research. Then, you have to be really diligent as a dilettante to get to the data. And only by really looking at the data (or models, in the case of Climate) can you make your own evaluations.
9   Booger   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 28, 7:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

But a retarded little girl says that climate change is real, but China and India aren't polluting!
10   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 29, 8:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

finehoe says
You anti-science twits are pathetic. Who are these "500 scientists"?

Who are the "97%" of scientists who believe. Got a list? Can you name one that has not been discredited?

I don't expect an answer.
11   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 29, 8:29am     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
500 naysayers ver 50000 who believe that. But the right-winger continue to believe in it

Are you believers planning on burning the heretics?
12   REpro   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 29, 11:29am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rocketjoe79 says
The thing I love about Patnet is it forces me to examine alternate points of view and do my own research. Then, you have to be really diligent as a dilettante to get to the data. And only by really looking at the data (or models, in the case of Climate) can you make your own evaluations.


This is what we call "critical thinking", where most democrats are lack of it.
13   REpro   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 29, 11:38am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What people should focus the most is to have clean air to breath and clean water to drink, everything else is far, far, beyond humans capabilities.
14   Patrick   ignore (0)   2019 Sep 29, 1:26pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

rocketjoe79 says
The thing I love about Patnet is it forces me to examine alternate points of view and do my own research.


Thanks!

I'm grateful that multiple points of view are represented here.
15   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 8:54am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

finehoe says
You anti-science twits are pathetic. Who are these "500 scientists"? The link lists 14, the first of which is an oil company employee and rest, with one exception, aren't even climate scientists. And the one guy who is, was reprimanded by MIT for lying.

How about this scientist, NAS member and a highly regarded specialist in the field:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide - among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO 2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control carbon dioxide levels.

Author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
16   Tim Aurora   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 10:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

6rdB says
You anti-science twits are pathetic. Who are these "500 scientists"? The link lists 14, the first of which is an oil company employee and rest, with one exception, aren't even climate scientists. And the one guy who is, was reprimanded by MIT for lying.

How about this scientist, NAS member and a highly regarded specialist in the field:

Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide - among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics.This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians ...


See below From Wikipedia that disprove his theory but I give you that he is a renowned scientist

Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."
17   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 11:23am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Another one:

https://twitter.com/DavidBCollum

https://twitter.com/DavidBCollum/status/1178612652249161728

and

In 2005, influential papers in Nature & Science were published that linked ongoing global warming w/changes in hurricane activity, specifically in the Atlantic.

Data from 1970-2004 was used.
We now have 15-years more data.
Those papers didn't hold up but the ideas persist.

etc
18   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 11:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And I do not argue that we should do something about fossil fuel use - but I argue that solutions by the idiot Left and greens are generally stupid and unrealistic. We should go to less polluting alternatives if they are economically viable, and screw over Saudi Barbaria, Russia, and other assorted oil rich dictatorships.
20   OccasionalCortex   ignore (5)   2019 Sep 30, 12:24pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
500 naysayers ver 50000 who believe that.


Libtards: SHOW US at least one real scientist who doesn't believe in Global Warming!
The-Sane-People: Ok, here's a list of 500 of them. How's that?
Libtards: [insert all kinds of rants about them not being 'real' scientists, 'naysayers' or some other goal-post-moving bullshit in response]

22   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 12:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
Tim Aurora says
500 naysayers ver 50000 who believe that.


Libtards: SHOW US at least one real scientists who doesn't believe in Global Warming!
The-Sane-People: Ok, here's a list of 500 of them. How's that?
Libtards: [insert all kinds of rants about them not being 'real' scientists, 'naysayers' or some other goal-post-moving bullshit in response]

About 99 (or 97)%:

https://twitter.com/redforged42/status/1178624440898347009
23   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 12:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says


That's a dumb meme.

If we implement the crazy policies advocated in the Green New Deal - let alone totally carbon free in 10 years, we will see:

- Mass death in the 3rd world from famine and the elements
- Economy crashing throughout the world
- No airplane travel
- Civil war over limited resources and energy

The Global Warming Cultists would be able to get more support for their Religion is their medicine wasn't worse than the disease.
24   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 12:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OccasionalCortex says
Libtards: SHOW US at least one real scientists who doesn't believe in Global Warming!
The-Sane-People: Ok, here's a list of 500 of them. How's that?


How many reputable scientists are willing to go against the Climate Cult herd and dare show any skepticism about Climate Change and then be drum out of industry by the Maoist freaks who have taken over academia?

We should ask the 97% of scientists who are all board with Climate Cult how many genders they think there are in the human race.
25   rd6B   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 12:46pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
We should ask the 97% of scientists who are all board with Climate Cult how many genders they think there are in the human race.

Please see link in #22 about the "97%". It is nowhere close to 97%.
26   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Sep 30, 1:08pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

6rdB says
socal2 says
We should ask the 97% of scientists who are all board with Climate Cult how many genders they think there are in the human race.

Please see link in #22 about the "97%". It is nowhere close to 97%.


Good find.

I still think there are many skeptical scientists who haven't totally joined the Climate Cult - but are afraid to speak publicly out of fear of being black-balled in their industry or being called "oil stooge deniers" by the little Maoists.
27   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 30, 5:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
Good find.

Articles confirming my beliefs are not that easy to find.

socal2 says
there are many skeptical scientists who haven't totally joined the Climate Cult - but are afraid to speak publicly


It's a cult.... as in there is no empirical data, right?
28   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Sep 30, 5:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
If we implement the crazy policies advocated in the Green New Deal - let alone totally carbon free in 10 years, we will see:

- Mass death in the 3rd world from famine and the elements
- Economy crashing throughout the world
- No airplane travel
- Civil war over limited resources and energy

Who's the catastrophist here?

If we use solar panels and electric cars, that shit will happen?
29   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Sep 30, 5:06pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
there is no empirical data

The temp has gone up 1 degree in a hundred years... If you believe in the manipulated data.
30   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Oct 1, 11:46am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-10-01/americans-are-finally-worried-about-climate-change
"The evidence was strong 10 years ago, even 20, that the world had a problem with global warming. We knew then that it was going to exacerbate extreme weather and heat waves and raise the sea level. But nearly half of Americans didn’t take it seriously. Now they do, according to polls, and what changed wasn’t the amount of evidence but a shift in political forces and some changes in the way scientists learned to make their case."

This is now rearguard action.
31   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Oct 1, 11:51am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Who's the catastrophist here?

If we use solar panels and electric cars, that shit will happen?


If we get 100% off carbon in 10 years as the extremists are advocating - we will see massive human suffering.

No amount of solar panels, windmills, batteries and electric cars are going to provide enough energy to heat billions of homes in Northern Climates.
32   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Oct 1, 11:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
100% off carbon in 10 years

Of course there is no chance of this happening whatever some activist says.
It has a half life in decades and a long tail.
33   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Oct 1, 11:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
It's a cult.... as in there is no empirical data, right?


Yes - it's a cult trying to dramatically re-organize society by exaggerating risks in the future.

34   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Oct 1, 11:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Of course there is no chance of this happening whatever some activist says.
It has a half life in decades and a long tail.


Activists?

The "Green New Deal" - which every Democrat Presidential candidate has publicly supported - says the US has to be 100% off carbon in 10 years.
35   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Oct 1, 12:39pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Really? the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization”.
The NYT says "To achieve those goals, the plan calls for the launch of a “10-year mobilization” to reduce carbon emissions in the United States."
It would be crazy to think we won't generate carbon in 10yrs. This clearly won't happen.
They are still selling gas cars and will for years to come. These cars will continue to run for 10yrs+.
Even on the grid side. It clearly won't happen.
So??
36   socal2   ignore (1)   2019 Oct 1, 12:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Really? the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization”.


You sure about that?

"To achieve its goal, the plan calls for the United States to switch to 100% renewable energy in 10 years. In 2017, only 11% of the nation's energy consumption came from renewables, according to the Energy Information Administration. Another 9% is generated by nuclear power."
https://www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071

"According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution calls for a “10-year national mobilization” whose primary goals would be:[46]
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal
37   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2019 Oct 1, 12:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

We don't need reverse catastrophism.
Mobilization means preparation for a war, not winning the war.
38   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Oct 1, 12:59pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
The evidence was strong 10 years ago, even 20, that the world had a problem with global warming.

No it wasn't. The hockey stick never happened. The natural climate cycle peaked and now the world is cooling.
39   Onvacation   ignore (6)   2019 Oct 1, 1:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.""

While China and India continue to spew more pollution negating any clean energy we use.

Why aren't the alarmists calling for a boycott of China?
40   theoakman   ignore (0)   2019 Oct 1, 1:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
OccasionalCortex says
Libtards: SHOW US at least one real scientists who doesn't believe in Global Warming!
The-Sane-People: Ok, here's a list of 500 of them. How's that?


How many reputable scientists are willing to go against the Climate Cult herd and dare show any skepticism about Climate Change and then be drum out of industry by the Maoist freaks who have taken over academia?

We should ask the 97% of scientists who are all board with Climate Cult how many genders they think there are in the human race.


My belief is that the predictions made cannot possibly be scientifically given any merit based on the noisy data they present which would have error bars greater than the trend in nearly every case. Every study that has predicted an "acceleration" and a 4 degree rise has been a statistical joke and some of them have been forced to retract papers. I also know how "modeling" the climate is an impossible task given my experience with molecular dynamics simulations. Furthermore, the case has not been made that increases in 1 degree celsius over 100 years (a continutation of the trend) would be catastrophic to ecosystems or life in general. I also believe that the rate rise in sea level is so insigificant to affect a single generation. In the time it takes to rise an inch, we have built cities like present day New York City.

If you plotted the stantard of living of humans vs the rise in temperature, it's 100% positively correlated. If you plotted crop production or gdp vs the rise in temperature, it's 100% correlated. Correlation is not causation, but the idea that we can attribute future famine and suffering to a continuation of the trend is not reflected in any data that plots any type of prosperity vs temperature.

Science (energy production, medicine, genetic modification, industrial farrming) and evolution are so far ahead of the changes that occur that it doesn't matter. So who's the real science denier? Someone preaching Armageddon and urgency? Or is it somebody who realizes that there is no emergency.

if I came out and publicly made statements in my Physics classroom, which I don't think are ideologically based at all, there would be a gigantic group of parents calling for my job.
41   thomasdong1776   ignore (0)   2019 Oct 1, 6:42pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tim Aurora says
How about this scientist, NAS member and a highly regarded specialist in the field:


How about him. Was he among the 500, er, I mean 14, who signed this "registered letter"? We all know major scientific knowledge is transmitted via registered letter.

« First    « Previous    Comments 2 - 41 of 41    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions