"climate change is not our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30. But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public. Here are some facts few people know:Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction” The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”Climate change is not making natural disasters worse Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003 The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as AlaskaThe build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, notclimate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and CaliforniaCarbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decadesand peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial”agricultureI know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies. Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not..
metmike: Some people are coming to their (scientific) senses!
National Academies of Science should speak out against climate alarmism, not support it. This is the major message in a recent letter from Professor Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, to the new head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The integrity of science is at stake.
This letter is a model for how all alarmist National Academies should be addressed. For example, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is painfully alarmist. Even worse, NAS has been joined in promoting alarmism by its two siblings, the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The fact that these Academies have become a servant of supranational political organizations such as IPCC shows how serious the crisis in climate science really is.
The letter is addressed to Prof. Dr. Ineke Sluiter, President of KNAW. It begins with a clear statement of the issue:
“I am addressing you in your capacity as the new President of the KNAW because the climate issue is escalating. The IPCC and the associated activist climate movement have become highly politicised. Sceptical scientists are being silenced. As an IPCC expert reviewer, I critically looked at the latest draft climate report. My conclusion is that there is little evidence of any intent to discover the objective scientific truth.
Though IPCC’s doomsday scenarios are far from representative of reality, they play an important role in government climate policy. Only courageous individuals dare to point out that the predictions of the IPCC’s computer models of climate have not come to pass, in that contemporary measurements contradict them. IPCC’s confidence in its own models does not match the real-world outturn. In the past, scientific societies such as ours would have sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added.)
In your interview with Elsevier Weekblad (6 June 2020) you say: “Dutch science should be proud of itself” and, a little later, “A hallmark of high-quality research must be a wide variety of viewpoints – fewer dogmas, more viewpoints.” I agree. Unfortunately, your observations do not seem to apply to climate science. There, diversity is suppressed and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) dogma is promoted. That is why I am writing to you.”
After discussing the well known problems with the IPCC science, Professor Berkhout states his case:
“Why do scientific institutions not warn society that all these climate-change doom and gloom scenarios have little or no scientific justification? I know that there are many scientists around the world who doubt or disagree with the IPCC’s claims. I also know from my own experience and from correspondence with colleagues that there is much pressure on researchers to conform to what we are told is the climate “consensus”. But the history of science shows time and again that new insights do not come from followers but from critical thinkers. For valid new insights, measurements trump models.
here are more and more indications that things are not right. If the scientific community waits for the dam to burst, the damage to science will be enormous. Society will then rightly ask itself the question: why were the Academies of Sciences silent? Surely there has been enough warning from scientific critics of the official position?
The KNAW must, of course, stay clear of politics and focus on excellence in finding the truth. But I repeat that the KNAW is also the guardian of science. In climate policy in particular, science is abused on a global scale. How can one plausibly state, on such a highly complex subject as the Earth’s climate, that “the science is settled”? That is not excellence: it is stupidity.”
Amen, Amen, Amen!
This junk science about the fake climate crisis scare is exactly what the people above are referring to. The only place all this really bad stuff is happening on a large, apocolyptic scale in on computer model simulations going out for the next 100 years.
At this point, we are seeing an increasing amount of intelligent people that believed the screams of "Climate Wolf" "Climate Wolf" realizing nothing but climate LAMBS have come our way on this greening planet during the current climate OPTIMUM.
metmike: It would be one thing if they told us 2 sides of the story and used reality/gave great weight to observations but instead, we've been fed a steady stream of this for over 2 decades:
Scare us, so that we will agree to do what they say needs to be done to save....... the greening up planet............ with the booming biosphere.......... and most life benefiting from the slight warming............and still not as warm yet in the higher latitudes as 9,000 to 5,000 years ago during the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM.