500 scientists say there is no climate emergency

[ReinyDays]

The consensus is overwhelming.

Consensus is political ... science is deductive ... what you mean is the science is overwhelming, so you have nothing but other's opinions ...

 

[Crick]

Every time they did, it or they were censored. That's the way they roll in Marxism.

The world's science journals are not ruled by Marxism and are not censoring anyone. They do, however, require that submissions pass scientific muster. Papers that deniers might favor tend to fail that requirement.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hell man. I have posted so many climate scientists rebuttal of your creeps, we have knocked you all out.

You have not posted one single rebuttal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you think there is a consensus explain how we know.

We look at the I p c c report and the evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every time they did, it or they were censored.

What an idiotic lie. Get that bullshit out of here. Embarrassing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Consensus is political

No. the consensus among scientists arises from the overwhelming consensus of the evidence.

 

[elektra]

We look at the I p c c report and the evidence.

There is no evidence of a consensus

The IPCC has not made a report where the opinion of all scientist shows a consensus

 

[Delldude]

The world's science journals are not ruled by Marxism and are not censoring anyone.

Oh......they aren't wrapped up in the climate and environmental justice movement?

They do, however, require that submissions pass scientific muster.

Scientific muster is meeting with their consensus, anything different than their views is censored or the particular individuals are excoriated and/or destroyed.

 

[Delldude]

What an idiotic lie. Get that bullshit out of here. Embarrassing.

Biden vs Missouri is all about gov't censorship relating to anything they don't like ala covid, climate change, etc.....you need to get a leg up.

 

[Crick]

Oh......they aren't wrapped up in the climate and environmental justice movement?

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. I don't keep up on the latest right wing paranoia.

Scientific muster is meeting with their consensus, anything different than their views is censored or the particular individuals are excoriated and/or destroyed.

Scientific muster is good science and a proper exercise of the scientific method. Don't you ever get tired of pretending to be a victim. Be a fucking grown man for once. Have the balls to admit you've been wrong.

 

[Delldude]

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Climate and environmental justice are what is driving the one sided 'climate consensus'.

Scientific muster is good science and a proper exercise of the scientific method.

True but when the only acceptable muster is one sided with counter debate being censored, you've lost the scientific method.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:




Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:


MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech...

www.aei.org

To suggest the CO2 isn't a pollutant is a little misleading at best. Water vapor can be a pollutant, a pollutant is something that is harmful to the environment. Oxygen is a pollutant within our own bodies and within the environment.

CO2 is essential to life on this planet, but too much it then becomes a pollutant.

 

[Delldude]

To suggest the CO2 isn't a pollutant is a little misleading at best.

To suggest it is follows the same path.

CO2 is essential to life on this planet, but too much it then becomes a pollutant.

Too much CO2 should cause excessive plant growth on the planet.

 

[Crick]

Climate and environmental justice are what is driving the one sided 'climate consensus'.

No they are not. The consensus was created by the results of thousands of peer reviewed studies.

True but when the only acceptable muster is one sided with counter debate being censored, you've lost the scientific method.

You're talking in circles. Counter debate is not being censored. People attempting to counter the consensus are simply failing to demonstrate good science. Just like people who try to demonstrate that the world is flat or hollow. They can't make good science support their contentions BECAUSE THEY AREN'T TRUE.

 

[Robert W]

To suggest the CO2 isn't a pollutant is a little misleading at best. Water vapor can be a pollutant, a pollutant is something that is harmful to the environment. Oxygen is a pollutant within our own bodies and within the environment.

CO2 is essential to life on this planet, but too much it then becomes a pollutant.

We need a lot more CO2 in order to repair the former greener planet. Why not help get more into the environment.

 

[Robert W]

No they are not. The consensus was created by the results of thousands of peer reviewed studies.

You're talking in circles. Counter debate is not being censored. People attempting to counter the consensus are simply failing to demonstrate good science. Just like people who try to demonstrate that the world is flat or hollow. They can't make good science support their contentions BECAUSE THEY AREN'T TRUE.

If somebody told you they can manage global climate, my thinking is you would want them committed.

 

[jc456]

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:




Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:


MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech...

www.aei.org

Look up Tom Nelson

 

[Robert W]

Look up Tom Nelson

Thanks, I did.

Chairman, President and CEO

Thomas C. (Tom) Nelson has served as Chairman, President, and CEO of National Gypsum Company since 1999. National Gypsum Company, headquartered…

www.businessroundtable.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

We need a lot more CO2 in order to repair the former greener planet. Why not help get more into the environment.

What do you mean? How would CO2 "repair" the Earth?

 

[ReinyDays]

No. the consensus among scientists arises from the overwhelming consensus of the evidence.

What evidence ... you only have weak correlation and consensus of opinions ... or so you claim ...

You count "no opinion" as a positive ... that's lying, not a consensus ... you do not have an overwhelming consensus, or show me the election results ... the paper you refer to shows over 60% of scientific papers do not include statement about man-kind causing climate change in their abstracts ... counting these as positives is lying ... your 1st Amendment right ...