Scientists coming out of the woodwork-no climate crisis!
14 responses | 1 like
Started by metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:08 p.m.

No climate emergency but the MSM refuses to cover it!  Instead, they cover an abused 16 year old girl who is now their climate crisis guru, having replaced the polar bear because the polar bear population has continued to increase.

None of these real scientists are getting any coverage. 


https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/

Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres

             

          

 European Climate Declaration  September 26, 2019

There is no climate emergency

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ED-brochureversieNWA4.pdf

A global network of 500 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 the uncertainties and exaggera-tions in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassion-ately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation

"A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, has sent a registered letter to the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres. They warn the Secretary-General that “[c]urrent climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”
They add: “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.”

metmike: Each scientist and their field of expertise is listed

Comments
By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:12 p.m.
Like Reply

Realist Catholic Climate Declaration

https://realclimate.wixsite.com/declaration

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church makes no mention of earth’s optimal climate, or the best rate of change of the climate, nor should it. Neither optimum is known to anybody.


The earth’s climate has always changed, is changing now, and will never cease changing. The extent to which man is responsible for climate change is not known, only surmised. There is no earthly force capable of stopping climate change.


Extreme caution, even skepticism, is warranted in any statement about the climate given the decades of failed and overreaching forecasts and hyperbole from official and interested sources. Beyond individual prudent stewardship, no Catholic is obliged to support any environmental measure.


The salvation of souls is of more pressing concern than the air temperature. Pray to God and pray for your neighbor, not to the planet.


By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:16 p.m.
Like Reply


  

             31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs      

http://www.petitionproject.org/


                                    


            

                

By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Head of Key Meteorological Organization Slams Climate Extremists: Alarmism busted. Arctic life doing great. Climate modeler spills the beans.  September 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39593/

By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:21 p.m.
Like Reply

Do 97% of experts agree with the IPCC that human CO2emissions are causing dangerous global warming?

https://www.sealevel.info/97pct/#articles

"That "97%" claim is significant, not for what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about the Climate Movement spin machine. It turns out to be a classic example of the Big Lie."

By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:28 p.m.
Like Reply

And this is how the Mainstream Media reacts:

Changing the language to scarier language to scare people even more about a fake crisis/emergency.

Freedom of the Press they call it. 

Guardian climate pledge 2019

'It's a crisis, not a change': the six Guardian language changes on climate matters

1.) “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to be used instead of “climate change”

2.) “climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”

3.) Use “global heating” not “global warming”

4.) “greenhouse gas emissions” is preferred to “carbon emissions” or “carbon dioxide emissions”.

5.) Use “wildlife”, not “biodiversity”

6.) Use “fish populations” instead of “fish stocks”

It's George Orwells 1984!


By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:41 p.m.
Like Reply

Seriously, we are having a climate optimum by all scientific and historical standards. The best weather/climate in over 1,000 years and best CO2 levels of the beneficial gas since humans have existed

Since this is true............think about how profound the lie is stating the complete opposite. How profound the hijacking of climate science for the political agenda has been. 

Don't believe me?

Don't believe those 10's of thousands of REAL scientists?


Yeah, that's how the convincing sounding lie continues to spread.  The MSM and United Nations have become the gatekeepers of information you receive. 8% of the US population is progressive activists but 50% of climate scientists are progressive activists which is also the number in the MSM. They completely control the narrative. They have completely controlled the information you get about the fake climate crisis.


90% of social scientists have belief systems that are extreme left.......another field biased in providing one sided, often wrong science. 

Questions I often get are, why would they do this? and how could the entire world and all the scientists be in on it? and how could this happen?. Here are some discussions that clearly answer those questions. 



Ex-KGB on Ideological Subversion: How the UN/IPCC hijacked science/brainwashed the world. Previously warmer. Polar bear hoax. Sept. 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38156/



New: Teen Climate Activist Speaks To Congress:   Blatant scientific fraudulence and child abuse used as the latest scheme to push the extreme propaganda. September 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39525/         


Living in the world of escalating brainwash- alarmist language-polar bears-why most research is false-May 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/30462/


Global climate strike/brainwashing youth/catalytic convertors/deaths from climate catastrophes: March 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25996/


Does the media have too much power?: Time Magazine goes off the anti science deep end/97% of scientists agree on a climate crisis bs/31,487 American scientists disagree that there is a crisis. Sept 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38797/


 


Climate change, pollution, and the great civilizations of the past: Exactly how climate science was hijacked for the political agenda.    September 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39960/


National Geographic is in on the hoax/Fraudulent Climate Accord/Follow the money/Global greening is bad???: March 2019

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25892/

By TimNew - Oct. 18, 2019, 9:34 p.m.
Like Reply

Thoughts?


https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/?fbclid=IwAR3Kd9pxL_8wg6BDJlfL9PXpqtBaWiQ8PbxUje7Q_Lk3yuy2SR1JSFmSpBw


"

Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science

Analysis of "There is no climate emergency"
Published in , by , , , , , , , , , , , , , on

Six scientists analyzed the letter and estimate its overall scientific credibility to be 'very low'.
A majority of reviewers tagged the article as: , , , .

By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 10:58 p.m.
Like Reply

Regarding the critique from those 6 scientists..........they are sounding smart with bullsheet.


There are so many wrong statements, I hardly know where to start.

How about this one:


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

 Frances Moore, Assistant Professor, University of California Davis:
This claim is misleading. In a meta-analysis of over 1,000 studies of the effects of climate change on agriculture[1], we find that, while CO2 is beneficial for crops, this effect rapidly decreases with increasing concentrations. The net effects of climate change on agriculture, including both the benefits of CO2 fertilization and the negative effects of warming, is negative for almost all regions. The effects of CO2 emissions on agriculture cost approximately $8.5 per ton, even accounting for the positive effects of CO2 fertilization.

metmike: He might be right if we are living in the world of busted models that have all been too warm and all way wrong about agriculture and the greening planet. Here is the real world below. 

Use your eyes and common sense and judge for yourself if the affects overall have been negative. The CO2 fertilization has been positive but they say the negatives of warming are greater...............this is wrong. The warming, which has featured the best weather/climate in the last `1,000 years has been an additional big plus.........by every objective measure.

CO2 =positive

Warming =positive


https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/soyyld.php


Soybeans: Yield by Year, US


There obviously are other contributing factors with genetics and farming technology (+75%) but the +CO2 and weather(+25%) have been a big plus.

With Corn, it's a different picture because of the  introduction of nitrogen fertilizer causing corn yields to triple real fast and not as much to do with CO2 or weather during that initial tripling. However, recent decades have featured a steady increase, along with a steady increase in CO2 and beneficial weather.

http://crazyeddiethemotie.blogspot.com/2014/10/corn-questions-from-food-inc-worksheet.html

https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/yieldtrends.html


World cereal markets remain well balanced in 2018/19

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

Estimates for global cereal production, utilization and stocks raised sharply following historical adjustments for China  

Release date: 04/04/2019












Of course technology is responsible for 75% of the increase in this world food production but 25% of the increase has come from that climate change(and increased CO2) associated with that fake climate crisis we keep hearing about. 


But how do we really know that it's not ALL from technology?


By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 11 p.m.
Like Reply

Human technology can't be causing the entire planet to green up. 

So whats doing it?

How can the planet be massively greening up if we are killing it?


Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

                   https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

      

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

globe of Earth from North Pole perspectiveThis image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015.



By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 11:10 p.m.
Like Reply


Most people may wonder who started this fake climate crisis.


The UN ...........indisputably!

AP NEWS  PETER JAMES SPIELMANN                      June 29, 1989

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

  "Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. 

   He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. 

   As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. 

   Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study."

metmike: Disaster didn't come in 2000. Then it didn't come in 2015 as predicted by Al Gore and the IPCC in 2007 and here in 2019, we are told that it will be here in 2030 for the same reasons that it was supposed to come 19 years ago and 4 years ago. 

But we can save the planet  by doing exactly what they tell us must be done...........even though we saved the planet over the last 30 years..............by doing the complete opposite of what they said had to be done. We burned even more more fossil fuels and massively increased CO2. 

The real green new deal is the one which is causing the planet to massively green up from the increase in CO2.

The only green in the political Green New Deal is the green of your money changing hands............from out your pockets into the control of government. 

When you are having a climate optimum like this one, disaster..................NEVER comes......unless you do what they say.

By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 11:22 p.m.
Like Reply

So the planet is greening up, the biosphere is booming, life hasn't done this well in over 1,000 years(we actually rescued the planet from dangerously low CO2 levels) but what will happen if this modest beneficial  warming continues for another 100 years?


It's likely that then, we will be closer to but still not as warm as the Holocene Climate Optimum from 9,000 to 5,000 years ago that was warmer than this in the high latitudes where most of the current warming is taking place:



Holocene climatic optimum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum


"Out of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites, where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than now."


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Temperature variations during the Holocene from a collection of different reconstructions and their average. The most recent period is on the right, but the recent warming is only seen in the inset.


By metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 11:59 p.m.
Like Reply

Related to the constantly evolving, increasingly alarmist verbiage used to push topics like  global warming!........ climate change!!, climate crisis!!!.........climate emergency!!!!.


Language as the “Ultimate Weapon” in Nineteen Eighty-Four


http://www.berkes.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html


Demonstrating the repeated abuse of language by the government and by the media in his novel, Orwell shows how language can be used politically to deceive and manipulate people, leading to a society in which the people unquestioningly obey their government and mindlessly accept all propaganda as reality.

By TimNew - Oct. 19, 2019, 7:03 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks.   I figured you'd have some feedback to provide on that :-)

By metmike - Nov. 3, 2019, 12:46 p.m.
Like Reply

How they manipulated data to come up with the fake 97.1% consensus of climate scientists belief that we are having a climate crisis.

metmike as an atmospheric scientist, would have been included in their 97% based on his belief that humans may have caused over half of the (beneficial) warming. 


Image


When the fraudulent study came out(before we actually saw how they distorted the results), the predicted effect on the MSM turned out correct:

Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/


1. Thousands of papers support man-made climate change, but not one found the evidence that matters

Cook may have found 3,896 papers endorsing the theory that man-made emissions control the climate, but he cannot name one paper with observations that shows that the assumptions of the IPCC climate models about water vapor and cloud feedbacks are correct. These assumptions produce half to two-thirds of the future projected warming in models. If the assumptions are wrong (and dozens of papers suggest they are) then the predicted warming is greatly exaggerated. Many of the papers in his list are from these flawed models.

In other words, he’s found 3,896 inconclusive, subsequently-overturned, or correct but irrelevant papers. What is most important about his study is that after thousands of scientists have pored over the best data they could find for twenty years, they still haven’t got any conclusive support.