1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare: “There is No Climate Emergency”

[Crick]

How about you first show the credibility of those you claim to be authorities. Lets do that first!

Then we can talk about the 31,000 scientists who don't believe as you do.

Global Warming Petition Project

You don't get to set conditions. Besides, the names and bona fides of ALL the sources used in any of the IPCC's assessment reports are clearly listed in the document. Feel free to look them up.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You don't get to set conditions. Besides, the names and bona fides of ALL the sources used in any of the IPCC's assessment reports are clearly listed in the document. Feel free to look them up.

And who has the time or inclination to do that?

That's what makes this type of claim such good propaganda. It would take hours to verify.

Russia or China would be proud...if it didn't come from them in the first place.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't get to set conditions. Besides, the names and bona fides of ALL the sources used in any of the IPCC's assessment reports are clearly listed in the document. Feel free to look them up.

How Nice... You get to set the conditions and ignore anyone with whom you disagree... How convenient.. Troll..

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You seem closed minded about the issue.

Asking for a discussion in the face of economic hardships caused by those who refuse discussion is anything but close minded.
Why do you want make things difficult for others?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Asking for a discussion in the face of economic hardships caused by those who refuse discussion is anything but close minded.

No. Of course not. But claiming apposing scientists are "alarmists" shows you have already decided who you want to believe...which is weird because you have also claimed you wish both sides would come together and talk so you can understand as a layman.

Do you already understand the issue or not?

Why do you want make things difficult for others?

I don't.

 

[g5000]

The biggest lie ever told. That is what AGW has been for decades.

It is just a power grab by the elites.

​

The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.​

​

The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.​

​

Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”​

​

Since emerging from the ‘Little Ice Age’ in around 1850, the world has warmed significantly less than predicted by the IPCC on the basis of modelled human influences. “The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change,” the WCD notes.​

​

The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.​

​

The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. 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 yield of crops worldwide.”​

​

In addition, the scientists declare that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such-like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. “There is no climate emergency,” the Declaration goes on. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” it says, adding that the aim of global policy should be “prosperity for all” by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. “In a prosperous society, men and women are well educated, birth rates are low and people care about their environment,” it concludes.​

​

...​

1,200 Scientists and Professionals Declare: “There is No Climate Emergency” – The Daily Sceptic

First we had the Great Barrington Declaration, challenging the 'settled' scientific consensus about lockdowns. Now comes the World Climate Declaration, challenging the computer models predicting environmental catastrophe.

dailysceptic.org

Well, I looked at the list of signers, and I don't see many climate scientists on it.

I see astrophysicists, mathematicians, a United Airlines pilot, a philosopher, a special ed teacher, and many many other completely unqualified people.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No. Of course not. But claiming apposing scientists are "alarmists" shows you have already decided who you want to believe...which is weird because you have also claimed you wish both sides would come together and talk so you can understand as a layman.

Do you already understand the issue or not?


I don't.

But you are by acquiescing to the alarmists.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, I looked at the list of signers, and I don't see many climate scientists on it.

I see astrophysicists, mathematicians, a United Airlines pilot, a philosopher, a special ed teacher, and many many other completely unqualified people.

Bull shit.. over 9,000 are physicists who deal in hard fact. Your blind as a damn bat and your sonar is dead.

 

[Catsnmeters]

But you are by acquiescing to the alarmists.

How did I acquiesce?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ask me a question I can't possibly answer.

Great evasion.

How about 14,700?

Scientists warn of Earth’s unequivocal climate emergency

Earth’s vital signs have deteriorated to the point humanity is “unequivocally” facing a climate emergency, an international coalition of researchers warns in a report published today.

www.sydney.edu.au

Why tout denier scientists numbers if they mean nothing to you?

The article in the link you didn't read is poorly written and lacking real numbers about weather events.

They failed to make a case for a he he..... ha ha ha... climate crisis.

 

[Sunsettommy]

What exactly did I resist? Please point this out.

Ha ha ha you haven't debated anything while attacking the other side.

This is normally called being closeminded.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well, I looked at the list of signers, and I don't see many climate scientists on it.

I see astrophysicists, mathematicians, a United Airlines pilot, a philosopher, a special ed teacher, and many many other completely unqualified people.

The IPCC used most of the people you consider "unqualified" to develop their reports.

 

[badbob85037]

Another reality making Old Joe the stupid sob he is.

 

[Dagosa]

Another reality making Old Joe the stupid sob he is.

What’s a “sob ?”

 

[Pappadave1]

Climate 'declaration' recirculates debunked claims

A "World Climate Declaration" signed by more than 1,200 people and widely shared on social media challenges the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change. But only a small number of the signatories are climate scientists, some have links to the oil industry or climate-skeptic...

factcheck.afp.com

"

A "World Climate Declaration" signed by more than 1,200 people and widely shared on social media challenges the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change. But only a small number of the signatories are climate scientists, some have links to the oil industry or climate-skeptic organizations, and the claims have been widely debunked."​

...
"
The declaration's claims are followed by a list of around 1,200 signatories from at least 40 countries, six listed as deceased at the time of publication of this article. Twenty-six of them are dubbed "World Climate Declaration Ambassadors," one of whom is dead.
One of the signatories is Ivar Giaever, a joint winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work on superconductors. Google Scholar indicates that he has not published any papers on climate science.
According to an AFP count of the declaration's signatories, about 10 explicitly described themselves as climatologists or climate scientists, fewer than one percent of the total. A few others described themselves as specialists in paleoclimatology and atmospheric sciences.
There were approximately 40 geophysicists, 130 geologists and 200 engineers of various kinds, plus several mathematicians, medical doctors and agricultural scientists.

Among the job titles of the other signatories were fisherman, airline pilot, sommelier, musician, lawyer, linguist, retired teacher, urologist, psychoanalyst and at least three energy workers' union representatives.
The specialist fact-checking site Climate Feedback in an analysis of an earlier version of the declaration, rated it as "biased," citing the significant number of fossil-fuel employees among the signatories. It also published an assessment of the latest declaration letter.
"Given the volume of inaccurate claims made in the letter… it is perhaps surprising that '1,200 scientists and professionals' agree with its content. It is, however, instructive to examine the credentials of the signatories," Climate Feedback's authors wrote.

IPCC: hundreds of studies​

Documents accrediting the mainstream scientific view on climate change are more comprehensive than the World Climate Declaration. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited 721 experts from 90 countries to be authors and editors of its three-part Sixth Assessment Report, released between August 2021 and April 2022.
The report constitutes the most comprehensive assessment of scientific knowledge on climate change. Each part was some 3,000 pages long. The authors reviewed hundreds of studies that were listed in the reference sections. It says there is "unequivocal" evidence that humans are warming the climate by burning fossil fuels.

Numerous posts on social media have cast doubt on the consensus among climate scientists that humans are driving global warming by burning fossil fuels. However three analyses of climate studies in recent years have indicated the consensus is close to 100 percent

False climate claims​

Despite this consensus, the declaration's text implies that various aspects of the science of climate change are still up for debate. "It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts," it says.

The declaration includes a series of climate science claims that have been debunked by climate experts. It gives no sources. AFP and other organizations have previously fact-checked several of the claims:

1. "Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases... Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming."

Experts cited in this AFP fact check said that the surge in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been abnormally sharp, driven by carbon emissions following industrialization.

2. "The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing... Climate policy relies on inadequate models."

This analysis by Carbon Brief showed that some models projected less warming than experienced and some projected more, but all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not far from what actually occurred. Experts defended the models in this AFP fact check.

3. "More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. "

Experts cited in this article by AFP Fact Check's German service said that plants can only process a limited share of the excess carbon dioxide emissions and suffer from the effects of climate change.

4. "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. "

World Weather Attribution (WWA), using methods including observational analysis of historic datasets, has calculated that various disasters were made more likely due to climate change, including floods and storms. Its methods are described in this AFP fact check on wildfires.

The problem is, there has been NO "surge in global temperatures over the past 150 years." Oh some have CLAIMED that global temperatures have risen by 1.4 degrees C since roughly 1870, but there's no way to know that since there were NO world-wide temperature monitors in 1870 and what instrumentation for temperature measurements that we DID have, were nowhere near as accurate as those in use today. Just where was the temperature monitored in Antarctica, Northern Siberia or Patagonia in 1870? Or, for that matter, in the Matto Grosso region of Amazonia, Australian outback or Uganda?