A group of scientists and professionals in climate and related fields sent a letter to the United Nations on Sept. 23 declaring that “there is no climate emergency.”
“The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose,” the letter, sent to Secretary-General António Guterres, states.
“Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models.”
The letter was signed by [over 500] prominent scientists and professionals from related fields, including atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and applied geology professor Alberto Prestininzi.
The effort is led by 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 letter states that current climate policies undermine the economic system and put lives at risk by denying countries affordable energy.
“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,” the letter states.
The letter’s release coincided with the U.N. climate summit in New York. Exemplifying some of the alarmism that prompted the letter, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg told the summit that the planet is in the beginning stage of “mass extinction.”
At a press briefing accompanying the letter, the scientists point out that the warming projected by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show temperature increases four times higher than the warming that was actually observed.
The IPCC has previously said its climate models can’t be used to accurately predict long-term changes in the climate.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.
The letter to the U.N. states that the Earth’s climate has always varied. The recent increase in global average temperature is no surprise, it says in the letter, considering that the Little Ice Age ended in 1850.
The letter also says that global warming hasn’t led to more natural disasters.
The Berkhout-led letter follows a petition by more than 90 Italian scientists, publicized in June, which challenges the assertion that humans cause global warming as a theory based on models that have failed to adequately predict climate changes.
“It is scientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for the warming observed from the past century to today,” the Italian petition states.
“The advanced alarmist forecasts, therefore, are not credible, since they are based on models whose results contradict the experimental data. All the evidence suggests that these models overestimate the [human] contribution and underestimate the natural climatic variability, especially that induced by the sun, the moon, and ocean oscillations.”
Read more at Epoch Times
Everytime I see one of these climate denial papers, I look up the background and find that the authors misrepresent the evidence and lie about the credentials of the authors. It is a fact that 97% of climate scientists accept that global warming is man made and caused by humans. I am an actuary and not a scientist but as an actuary, I have seen a mountain of specific data showing the dramatic increase droughts and floods over the last 30 years and the correlation with the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I know enough to ignore these bogus papers and it is a tragedy that so many people still believe them. Here is a summary of this letter by six respected climate scientists on this specific paper.
“This letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.
The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change. The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.
And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.
Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science”
Not at all, dear Burch. On the contrary, the effect of CO2 is well known, and not even IPCC gives greater importance to it than maximum 1 C degree warming when doubled. (In reality less, besides doubling by human is not really possible because of multiple reasons.)
The essence is, that the CO2 causes various kinds of feedback. Because of the feedback warming is possible by 2, 3, 5 or more degrees. Stories of feedback really belong to religion, not really they are no more than tell-tales.
No credible calculation has been made of feedbacks, it may be even so, that feedback is negative (as it will be, when water vapour turns into clouds.
Claiming “97% scientists” is not at all credible. We can say, that the majority of scientists who are employed to study CC are consensus-minded, but very many retired scientists are against the so-called consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838 and reasoned from experimental observations by Eunice Newton Foote in 1856.[11] John Tyndall expanded her work in 1859 by measuring radiative properties of a wider spectrum of greenhouse gases.[12] The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, who made the first quantitative prediction of global warming due to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.[13] However, the term “greenhouse” was not used to refer to this effect by any of these scientists; the term was first used in this way by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.[14][15]
Sandi, I would like to point out, that understanding of the atmosphere has been low in 1800´s. The space was supposed to be of ether. Svante´s calculations were false, it is not 6, but maximum 1 degree, because of logaritmic scale, where added content will be less significant. Actually there are calculations which suggests no more than 0,25 C raise in temperature should doubling occur.
There is to much money in climate to think it has not been corrupted.
I go to the beach and see the tide is in the same place as when I came here in 1964.
First we need to address the argument. We must say that fallacies are invalid and can be seen used by the global warming crowd. Ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam are commonly used fallacies that never support an argument. Just because many people or an authority claims something to be true does not make it true. An argument stands alone. So let us look at the facts and base a decision on the facts. The claim of “greenhouse gases” is suspicious because a gas cannot act like a greenhouse. A greenhouse is a structure that allows light energy in and keeps the gases from movement (gas movement causes cooling – think wind chill factor). When we look at the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics we find very little difference in characteristics between gases that would cause a great difference in heat conductance and heat storage abilities. There are slight differences but nothing great to create adding great amounts of heat into the system. So greenhouse gases is an oxymoron used to deceive .
The Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and less than 1% argon and 0.04 % carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is claimed to cause the increase in warming the Earth. The increase of carbon dioxide is 0.015% (from 0.025% to the present 0.04% today) . If we say that this 0.015% carbon dioxide has increased the atmosphere by 1 degree then how much heat would this added carbon dioxide need to take to cause the 1 degree increase in the Earth’s atmosphere? The Earth receives sunlight energy and the elements and compounds turn the sunlight to heat and light. We want the total atmosphere to increase 1 degree by the heat energy from the added carbon dioxide that is converted by the sunlight energy. We have 100 percent of the atmosphere at temperature T plus one degree or 100(T+1). The total atmosphere is made of 78% nitrogen at temperature T and 21% oxygen at temperature T and
(1-0.015)% at temperature T and 0.015% added carbon dioxide at temperature T plus x where x is the added heat temperature by the sun to cause a 1 degree increase in the total atmosphere. We have the equation 100(T+1)=78T + 21T + (1-0.15)T + 0.15(T + x) . This becomes 100T +100= 100T + 0.15x . Which becomes 100=0.15x or x=6667 degrees . The sun would have to heat the added carbon dioxide to 6667 degrees to increase the atmosphere one degree. This is impossible so the argument for carbon dioxide causing global warming is invalid.
Some global warming people claim that the heat people create by human activity increases the temperature of the Earth. If we look at a USA government site we can see that one year of human activity (including burning fuel) is about equal to one hour of sunlight received by the Earth. So the heat increase in one year of human activity is equal to 1 year of human activity divided by 1 year sunlight or 1 hour sunlight divided by 1 year sunlight or 1hr / 24hrsX365days which is an increase in temperature of 1/8760 or 0.00114 which is close to zero.
So the claims of humans causing great changes in temperature of the atmosphere by carbon dioxide or human activity producing heat is obviously false.
If people want to claim changes in weather in various areas due to human activity such as geoengineering or deforestation or asphalting areas or cementing areas or draining swampland or lowering water tables or stopping the natural meandering of rivers then that is a different argument I would not oppose.
The CO2 causes an increase in the retention of the thermal energy, it doesn’t have to act as a double boiler shell.
Leave this on Facebook and Twitter,! 500 scientists agree no human activity resulting in Climate Change,?
I suspect the UN won’t listen to objective science, because the climate hysteria is really just a pretext to impose UN totalitarianism and do away with nation states and democracy. People are too afraid to show their face and use their actual name and I got not a single signature on my petition asking educators to stop terrorizing impressionable children.
What a piece of dishonest fossil-fuel funded propaganda.
Anyone who believes this nonsense without fact-checking it, really wants to be fooled.
Read my post above, so you think this is fossil fuel propaganda, well do you think that the electric vehicles, wind farm people haven’t been funded by the companies who want to further their own agenda to make money.
What a piece of dishonest fossil-fuel funded propaganda.
Anyone who believes this nonsense without fact-checking it, really wants to be fooled.
I disagree
CO2 is not toxic and essential to plant life.
Mother Earth is an incubator… she wants global warming and she evolved us humans specifically to put her fossil carbon right back where it came from: In the biosphere!
And then we can be the disposable yolk as the machine life with a bioplastic hardware matrix hatches.
Nice thinking.
Lets accept that the climate is changing, it always has. Now what are the logical likely causes and consequences of the changes?
There are as many as you can imagine. Its a fact that the planet has been warming at, .1 of a degree per decade for quite a while now. 1 degree per century. Hence the 1.5 / 2.0 degree target. This data is available at
So lets not get hung up on the climate changing. The question is what to do. Do we
Spend trillions on pointless renewable energy projects that make carpetbaggers wealthy?
Do we suggest we shutdown our entire economic base, no more flying, no more meat, no more heating for our poor and elderly?
Do we allow unelected bueaucrats to dictate the correct response, while they live the elite lifestyle?
Or Do we make sensible and effective changes to the energy sources we have?
Do we encourage people to live more effectively and efficiently, eg Insulation, more public transport.?
Do we embrace small scale nuclear power.
Do we demand that China and India do their share?
No we make impossible demands and alienate conservatives and follow a path of proven fake catastrophe merchants. The head UN guy allegedly said its not about climate., its about wealth transfer.
This whole argument is wrapped up in too much emotion, look at the performance of Greta at the UN in New York last week. When we are reduced to taking our lead from a 1y year old school girl, well we are going to fail.
they only list 14 “scientists” and they’re not climate scientists and they completely lack credibility.
There are NOT 500 signatories to this letter and none of them are recognized credible client scientists.
To give you an idea the man who wrote the letter to the UN…
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, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology.
He is NOT a climate scientist and is heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry. His comments on climate change have been repeatedly discredited as both inaccurate and seriously biased towards the industries who are paying him.
Professor Richard Lindzen is also on that tiny list.of 14 “scientists”. Now he’s really interesting because he was a witness for the tobacco companies decades ago, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
And he’s currently funded by fossil fuel interests like Peabody Coal.
The Australian scientist Viv Forbes is a geologist not a climate scientist.
Forbes has over 40 years of coal industry experience and has worked with Burton Coal, Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal, South Blackwater Coal Mine, Tahmoor Coal Mine, Newlands/Collinsville Coal Mines, MIM, Utah Goonyella/Saraji, Gold Fields, Austral Coal, and others.
It’s obvious who’s paying him.
There’s not a shred of any expertise there in climate science but again guys like this are claiming to be experts on the climate.
One of the largest groups of scientists ever assembled regularly put together reports on climate change.
The organization is called the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).
Thousands of climate scientists donate their time and expertise to submit and analyze the current data on the topic.
Before they release a report over 200 delegates from over 100 countries have to agree unanimously on the document line by line.
They go to great lengths to scrutinize every sentence in the report and make sure there is no political agenda in it anywhere.
They debate for weeks to ensure every line of the report is just plain facts and data represented as accurately as possible.
There is NO other group in history that has ever scrutinized scientific data so thoroughly.
Their conclusions include the fact that climate change and its associated effects are a very real threat and that we need to take action on a wide front in multiple ways right now.
That IS the science.
If you’re reading something else you know it’s inaccurate and misleading because all the data on climate change is collated from almost every country in the world and every climate scientist in the world in the first phase.
THANK YOU!!
The UN uses the climate alarm to promote its agenda on a globalist one-man NWO.
Thought terminating cliche: Ring a bell with you?
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, geophysics and innovation management at Delft University of Technology. He is NOT a climate scientist.
There are NOT 500 signatories to this letter and none of them are recognized credible client scientists.
One of the largest groups of scientists ever assembled regularly put together reports on climate change.
The organization is called the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).
Thousands of climate scientists donate their time and expertise to submit and analyze the current data on the topic.
Before they release a report over 200 delegates from over 100 countries have to agree unanimously on the document line by line.
They go to great lengths to scrutinize every sentence in the report and make sure there is no political agenda in it anywhere.
They debate for weeks to ensure every line of the report is just plain facts and data represented as accurately as possible.
There is NO other group in history that has ever scrutinized scientific data so thoroughly.
Their conclusions include the fact that climate change and its associated effects are a very real threat and that we need to take action on a wide front in multiple ways right now.
That IS the science.
If you’re reading something else you know it’s inaccurate and misleading because all the data on climate change is collated from almost every country in the world and every climate scientist in the world in the first phase.
If the NONE of the dozens of models aren’t close wrt prediction then the “science” is wrong (regardless of the credentials of the participants involved).
We’ll have the list [of credible scientists] by October = The check is in the mail.
But then let’s all just remember, climate change and human-caused global warming is a campaign that has nothing to do with science. IT IS ALL ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL TYRANNY. The scum who throw this nonsense in our faces daily want only to control our lives and our civilization.
So you seriously believe that every single major science institution on the planet is involved some evil plot of ‘environmental tyranny!” to control your life? Are they lying to you about the laws of physics too?
LOL! Science deniers are nutty.
As a not brain-dead human(ist), scientist and cardiologist I can say that the arrogant, ignorant, intolerant anti-CO2-, so anti-life cult “Sun, cosmic rays, clouds and oceans (low-pass filter of the climate system because of their heat content) don’t exist: (anthropogenic) CO2 is the climate’s control knob” aka #IPCCCO2Hoax is one of the most inhumane, unscientific and sickest of all inventions by psychopaths to fool the empathetic humanity.
#GreenwashingNeoliberalism
#GreenwashingEugenics
So you seriously believe that every single major science institution on the planet are all “psychopaths” involved some evil “inhumane, unscientific sick plot to fool humanity”?
Are they lying to you about the laws of physics too?
LOL! Science deniers are nutty. I’ve also heard a lot of medical doctors are hooked on opioids.
Well as Greta says …listen to the scientists .
So lets see, is 500 scientists enough or are we just talking about the science fiction makers bought by the IPCC ?
What about the 90 Italian scientists and the 33,000 scientists before that who are just not playing ball . …there is no climate emergency . Correct there isn’t one but try and unwind a brain washed group of kids . .
Really how can there be OK well other than the $trillions of added debt .
Nutty climate science deniers are so easily fooled, because they WANT to be fooled.
The Democrat controlled Congress just heard testimony from children who have no scientific education. It is no surprise that their testimony was loaded with errors. Now, is the Democrat Congress going to hear from even one scientist who endorsed the “‘There Is No Climate Emergency” report? It is pretty sure none of these scientists will be invited to testify. This shows how extremely incompetent the Democratic Party as whole has become.
If I remember correctly, one or two of the climatologists/meteorologists involved in the “Coming Ice Age” era later switched to the “Global Warming” ideology.
Follow the money…..
The big money is in fossil fuels, so there goes your theory.
I don’t get why the oil companies get beat up on so much. Who are the consumers? (Us, I think.) The transition to renewable energy is inevitable (because we’ll run out of economically usable oil & gas someday) but where’s the plan? I hear fossil- free goalpost dates like 2025, 2030, 2050, but I have NEVER seen anyone actually explain how the transition will take place, and how long it will take.
If that’s the case, why are the car makers investing in electric vehicles?
For all those who think Global Warming/Climate Change is real Wake up and smell the Coffee Back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling and a New Ice Age those same liberal rags TIME and NEWSWEEK were giving it front page coverage in their weekly rags
So you should be able to provide a list of all the published papers in the 1970s about an “Ice Age is coming!” right”? Not just fake Time magazine cover?
Here is one. https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
I certainly hope the units of measurement used by today’s scientists differ from those, let’s say, 50 plus years ago. Correct me if I’m wrong, but science and technology has advanced over that time, hasn’t it?
If you were to look at the history of the Metric System, you would see that the French government enacted a law whereby all trading partners had to use the metric system in order to do business in France. (BTW Napoleon excoriated the system as being ridiculous.)
France was a big market, so guess what happened.
The US didn’t seem to care about the Metric System. The European Allies in both wars did not reject American weapons of war being shipped to them, having been built in Standard or British units.
American scientists, desirous of communicating with their peers in scientific journals and at scientific conferences, etc. obligingly pretty much switched over to the French government’s Metric System.
Did you know that people died on the physical survey of the Earth to determine the 10,000,000th part of the distance from the equator to the North Pole? Thusly, they came up with the “meter” which is just a little longer than the British yard i.e. 39.37in.?
They could have had the yard for free without killing anyone.
So, it turns out that the French were “Gaia worshipers,” and once again, people needlessly died for the sake of a false religion.
How about National Geographic in the ’70s? Unfortunately, they’ve also jumped on the climate change bandwagon in recent years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/06/climatic-irony-found-in-an-old-national-geographic-magazine/
There’s partisan climatologists, and then there’s secular scientists with broad based knowledge .
Guess who gets the headlines.
For many years, I’ve been posting a comment almost identical to yours, attached to alarmist news articles. I have noticed a trend. At first, 80% (approx) of the responses were hostile. Over time they transitioned to the opposite. Now 80% (approx) agree. The 20% who disagree don’t refute my comment with anything tangible, rather they insult me for my stupidity, or say something equally invalid.
One time I posted a comment on another web site that said nothing about the validity of climate change, just that President Trump didn’t have to do anything about the Paris Treaty because without US Senate ratification, it wasn’t binding for the US. A response was extremely emotional saying that I had no business commenting on that web site. There was no effort to address the validity of what I said.
They claim 500 backers but have only a handful of actual signatories. And have you bothered to look any of these “scientists” up? They include coal industry exectuives with no science background and a nutcase who “scientifically” argues that all AIDS sufferers need to be quarantined.
WRITE DOWN EXACTLY NAMES AND DETAILS…
Good point. Here are names and details.
“Guus” Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor. Berkhout started his career working for Shell. Between 1976 and 2007, he served as professor of acoustics, geophysics and innovation management.
Reynauld Du Berger is emeritus professor of geophysics at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi. His background is in geological engineering and seismology. A search of Google Scholar returns six results for Reynald Du Berger, all in the area of seismology. He does not appear to have published research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate.
Terry Dunleavy was is a former journalist and commercial printer, and has been involved in the NZ wine industry for many years.
Viv Forbes is the Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which was created to “defend the role of carbon on earth and in the atmosphere,” and is a pasture manager, soil scientist and geologist from Rosevale in Queensland. He has a Degree in Applied Science Geology, and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science, Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Canada, and author of Beyond Environmentalism: A Philosophy of Nature.
Morten Jødal is a biologist. He has worked with the fields of biology and chemistry in the Research Council of Norway, as well as with the research programs aquaculture, genetic engineering, acid rainfall and the ecology of the Arctic ice edge
Rob Lemeire is a civil engineer working on planning and real-time applications for drivers and vehicles.
Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. He is the Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. Lindzen’s academic interests lie within the topics of “climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability,” according to his faculty profile at MIT. The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services. In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.
Ingemar Nordin is professor emeritus at the Department of Culture and Communication at Linköping University. As a student, Nordin read both mathematics and physics as well as philosophy. The doctoral dissertation from 1980 deals with determinism and quantum mechanics. His current research areas include both philosophy of science and technology as well as political philosophy and the philosophy of medicine.
Jim O’Brien is a Corporate Social Responsibility/Energy Consultant who had a 39-year career in the building materials sector; he is actively consulting on a global basis in CSR and energy-related challenges and opportunities. Jim is Honorary President of UEPG, the European Aggregates Association. Jim qualified with a First Class Honours Degree in Electrical Engineering (BE) in 1968 and a Master of Engineering Science Degree (MEngSc) in 1970.
Alberto Prestininzi ias a geologist and engineer.
Benoît Rittaud is a senior lecturer in mathematics at the University of Paris.
Fritz Vahrenholt studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary.
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is a British public speaker known for his work as a journalist, Conservative political advisor, UKIP political candidate, and for his invention of the mathematical puzzle Eternity. Early on in his public speaking career topics centred on his mathematical puzzle and conservative politics. In recent years his public speaking has garnered attention due to his denial of climate change. He may be most famous for having falsely claimed to be a member of the House of Lords.
Nice cherry picking! All you have to do is look at Wikipedia List of scientist who disagree with global warming. There are about a hundred names on this list. Many of them are meteorologist, professors of atmospheric science, professors of environmental sciences, natural sciences, atmospheric sciences, physicist, geophysicist, geodynamics, atmospheric research scientist, NASA scientists, astronauts, astrophysicist, oceanographers, earth sciences, climate scientists, and yes, many other unrelated sciences to climate; however, these are very smart people. It would be foolish not to listen to what they have to say.
To my understing, the full list will be revealed on Oct. 18. How is it you already have it?
So you’re saying that because certain scientists work in fields in line with their beliefs, say things contrary to your beliefs they shouldn’t be taken seriously because they don’t work for organisations you approve of and say things you don’t like? So in other words, they shouldn’t be listened to beacause they’re not in your side?
I understand that this is an emotional topic, but I’d like you to think logically and come up with your own answers. My friends do modelling and forecasting-nothing to do with weather/climate but the same models are used. They made a great point one day that led me to pull up Canada’s weather station records. The world is billions of years old and we claim with 100% certainty that we understand the planet because of 150 plus years of spotty data. The weather station ‘data’ was unbelievably spotty here in Canada , especially outside of populated areas. Now, let’s consider Africa, Asia and the Middle East. How do you think the records look for 150 years ago? How about today even? Do you think the sub Sahara was keeping records 30 years ago that would have any validity in predicative analysis? The government is touting electric vehicles knowing that cobalt for batteries is being mined by hand by children as young as five in the Congo. That alone should tell you that their weather data is likely non-existent there. If the vast majority of the planet has no data, what on earth have they based their certainty of science on? Science is never final-anyone who tells you that is lying. We still aren’t even sure how oil and gas came to be as it has taken billions of years to develop through various conditions. Hundreds of years ago the church kept the masses in line by scaring people into thinking that they would go to hell if they didn’t pay a tithe to the church. People who could barely feed themselves, if at all, gave money/goods they didn’t have out of fear….Now THAT is a model that is proven to work. Why does the government shame/fear monger us into paying carbon taxes while allowing China to build another 300 coal plants in various countries to serve our consumer needs? If climate change is real, it is a global phenomenon and yet they contradict themselves on this. We buy e-scooters and solar panels from China. They make the vast majority of them-they are the reason solar panels became affordable as they flooded the market with them. Solar panels are made in coal fired plants using natural gas and require non-renewable minerals like cobalt that are shipped to China in boats that run on grade C bunker fuel, China then manufactures them and ships them around the world. You are told that’s green and renewable. Never mind toxic solar waste, they show you that oil will be needed for a very long time. Nobody factors in shipping or even pays a carbon taxon it. Shipping amount to at least 2% of global emissions and is expected to increase by 50%-simple math given that 85% of the population is poised to become rabid consumers. You have to consider the entire supply chain and when you do, none of this makes sense. Fun fact: Amazon’s global emissions amount to 85% of Denmark’s. Are we destroying the planet? Yes, without a doubt. But that’s due to overpopulation and the UN is promoting more of it by bringing 85% of the world’s population out of poverty. Another contradiction is to say we need to end fossil fuels when it is statistically impossible to provide for the energy needs of India, Asia, and Africa without fossil fuels-lots of them. The government knows this which is why they say nothing when they build coal plants, drill for oil and NG. Countries with no safety or environmental regulations are allowed to produce hydrocarbons but we aren’t. I know this first hand as they are sending students from these countries to me to teach them oil and gas regulations but trust me, they won’t catch up in 50 years. The state of dictatorships won’t allow for it. I worked in land, environment and regulatory in the oil sands. I also work part-time as a conduit between scientist, researchers and industry to fast track alternative, clean energy solutions to commercialization. I’m doing my part and the energy sector is doing theirs. I can promise you that what you have been sold about the oil sands is beyond false and the agenda behind it has nothing to do with the environment. The US wants discounted oil from us-its economic warfare and the people who suffer the most are First Nations. They are being used by eco-colonialists and our government in a manner that is inhumane. Some are being bribed by paid activists but the vast majority want opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. So why all the lies? Ask yourselves as well why scientists who speak out against climate change have their careers destroyed at worst and at best simply do not get any government funding. is that conclusive science? I think not. If you maintain a pre-conceived notion about the oil and gas industry in Canada, namely the oil sands, I am more than happy to answer your questions. I am a subject matter in regulations and ours are the best in the world.
Well stated.
Ahem, PERFECTLY stated.
Well stated. We could just listen to Bill Nye, the [paeudo]science guy.
Mr “Nutcase” has a good point. “AIDS sufferers” being allowed to spread their STDs to uninfected people is the only reason that AIDS isn’t on it’s way out of existence after all of these years since the problem was identified.
They said they are releasing the full list of names mid-Oct. The published names are the “country ambassadors.” And in science, there is no guilt-by-occupation. Is your research solid? Is it peer-reviewed? Are you able to defend it against research whose results are different? When observations contradict your theories, do you throw out the data or your theory? etc etc
In science, those are the ONLY questions that matter.
I think that there are many Scientists who are being sidelined due to the fact they do not buy into Global warming. One such Scientist, can’t remember his name, but he was a leading adviser to the UN, but when the UN funded research report came out, he said that it had no foundation in fact and that there were no graphs, calculations published with the report, when he argued this at the UN, he was dismissed as a hack. The biggest problem is who if funding the research and what is their invested outcomes of such research and if the results aren’t what they want, then does this research actually reach the public. Probably not. The results seem to go with the wishes of those paying for the research. One scientist in the 80’s and 90’s stated that the hole in the ozone layer had expanded and contracted over the time they were taking measurements and his conclusion was that as the earth cooled the ozone would get bigger and then the reverse would happen when the earth warmed. Once again we have to take the word of those scientists who are being paid to come out with the answers.
An Australian radio presenter was on a talk show, where he asked a scientist to confirm what he had told him, that there was 4% CO2 in the air and that of that 4% 0.3% was created by human activity and that of that 3% of that was produced by Australians. The scientist said he had never said that, to which the radio guy said he has recorded radio broadcasts that will show the scientist has said exactly that. The radio guys then on his radio show, plays the recording where you clearly hear the scientist agreeing with the radio guys numbers. It seems to be that these scientists who say there is global warming say what ever they need to say to get the approval of the audience they are talking to. The TV show was a pro global warming show and he would probably have been vilified to agreeing with the radio guy. So the biggest question is, “who do we believe?”