500 scientists say there is no climate emergency

[Robert W]

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:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.
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. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical 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

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

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that 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 yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

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

 

[Rambunctious]

500 scientists say there is no climate emergency​

On a scale of 1 to 10 its doesn't even make the list.... in fact because of climate change hysteria they have made the matter worse not better....

 

[Robert W]

500 scientists say there is no climate emergency​

On a scale of 1 to 10 its doesn't even make the list.... in fact because of climate change hysteria they have made the matter worse not better....

Enjoy that thought. I added more to this in a different thread.

 

[Delldude]

I was thinking they should input all the climate data, without bias from pro or con and let AI make a comment.

 

[Robert W]

I was thinking they should input all the climate data, without bias from pro or con and let AI make a comment.

Yeah, if Democrats would ever allow that to happen.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, if Democrats would ever allow that to happen.

How would Democrats prevent that from happening? If liberals and democrats had the power that you self-made victims claim they have, there'd be no ICE vehicles of fossil fuel power plants left.

 

[Robert W]

How would Democrats prevent that from happening? If liberals and democrats had the power that you self-made victims claim they have, there'd be no ICE vehicles of fossil fuel power plants left.

Though his rule was overturned by the courts, Biden waged war on oil products. Biden ordered electric vehicles be mandated for the Feds. The mark of a dictator. Biden would shut down all coal plants and would refuse to go nuclear. For a source that is only available part time. Wind and solar normally do not produce power at night.

 

[Crick]

Though his rule was overturned by the courts, Biden waged war on oil products.

That is false.

Sept 14 (Reuters) - Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of claims by Republican-led states and fuel industry groups that the Biden administration overstepped its authority when it issued a rule in 2021 aimed at reducing emissions from cars and light trucks, a major driver of climate change.

All three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel at Thursday's hours-long oral argument repeatedly pressed attorneys representing 15 states led by Texas, as well as fuel industry associations, on their arguments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule, which requires automakers to reduce yearly average emissions of vehicles through model year 2026, exceeds the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.

U.S. appeals court judges appear skeptical of challenge to Biden clean car rule

Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of claims by Republican-led states and fuel industry groups that the Biden administration overstepped its authority when it issued a rule in 2021 aimed at reducing emissions from cars and light trucks, a major driver of climate...

www.reuters.com

and

Judges seem to favor Biden rule that curbs emissions and boosts EVs

The D.C. Circuit panel seemed skeptical that the rules violate the "major questions" doctrine — but Biden's efforts could still be defeated by the Supreme

www.eenews.net

and

Biden's clean-car rules face a crucial test as appeals court hears Republican-led challenges

Efforts by the Biden administration to limit tailpipe pollution from automobiles face a crucial test as legal challenges brought by Republican-led states head to a federal appeals court.

apnews.com

Biden ordered electric vehicles be mandated for the Feds. The mark of a dictator.

For fuck's sake you're not really that stupid are you?

Biden would shut down all coal plants and would refuse to go nuclear.

You're just making shit up and stating it as fact. In this universe, that's known as "LYING".

For a source that is only available part time. Wind and solar normally do not produce power at night.

No wind at night? Really?

 

[Robert W]

That is false.

Sept 14 (Reuters) - Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of claims by Republican-led states and fuel industry groups that the Biden administration overstepped its authority when it issued a rule in 2021 aimed at reducing emissions from cars and light trucks, a major driver of climate change.

All three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel at Thursday's hours-long oral argument repeatedly pressed attorneys representing 15 states led by Texas, as well as fuel industry associations, on their arguments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule, which requires automakers to reduce yearly average emissions of vehicles through model year 2026, exceeds the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.

U.S. appeals court judges appear skeptical of challenge to Biden clean car rule

Judges on a U.S. appeals court panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of claims by Republican-led states and fuel industry groups that the Biden administration overstepped its authority when it issued a rule in 2021 aimed at reducing emissions from cars and light trucks, a major driver of climate...

www.reuters.com

and

Judges seem to favor Biden rule that curbs emissions and boosts EVs

The D.C. Circuit panel seemed skeptical that the rules violate the "major questions" doctrine — but Biden's efforts could still be defeated by the Supreme

www.eenews.net

and

Biden's clean-car rules face a crucial test as appeals court hears Republican-led challenges

Efforts by the Biden administration to limit tailpipe pollution from automobiles face a crucial test as legal challenges brought by Republican-led states head to a federal appeals court.

apnews.com

For fuck's sake you're not really that stupid are you?

You're just making shit up and stating it as fact. In this universe, that's known as "LYING".

No wind at night? Really?

Why can't you keep your eyes on the ball and discuss oil laws created by Biden? That the Courts smacked him silly and revoked them.

By the way, in what other ways are you so pleased with the Feds you accept them as your rulers? Why do you enjoy such rulers?

Well nothing, even wind, is 100 percent. But the winds in many places calm way down when the Sun finishes it's job for the day.

 

[Crick]

Why can't you keep your eyes on the ball and discuss oil laws created by Biden? That the Courts smacked him silly and revoked them.

The president does not have the authority to create laws.

There have been a number of actions in which the Biden Administration attempted to use the Clear Air Act in various ways to restrict oil and gas leasing on public lands. The court cases that resulted have gone in different directions. That Biden is working to reduce our use of fossil fuels should surprise no one. Anyone elected president aside from Donald Trump would work in the same direction. The views you and your brethren here hold regarding AGW are NOT common.

By the way, in what other ways are you so pleased with the Feds you accept them as your rulers? Why do you enjoy such rulers?

Because they were elected by the American people in a free and fair election.

Well nothing, even wind, is 100 percent. But the winds in many places calm way down when the Sun finishes it's job for the day.

Give it up. You slipped. It is entirely possible and absolutely mandatory for humans to power our homes and our industry and our transportation without emitting greenhouse gases.

 

[Robert W]

The president does not have the authority to create laws.

There have been a number of actions in which the Biden Administration attempted to use the Clear Air Act in various ways to restrict oil and gas leasing on public lands. The court cases that resulted have gone in different directions. That Biden is working to reduce our use of fossil fuels should surprise no one. Anyone elected president aside from Donald Trump would work in the same direction. The views you and your brethren here hold regarding AGW are NOT common.

Because they were elected by the American people in a free and fair election.

Give it up. You slipped. It is entirely possible and absolutely mandatory for humans to power our homes and our industry and our transportation without emitting greenhouse gases.

Biden does not as you admit. I admit he can't create laws. Try telling that to his cabinets. Do you not believe the cabinets create regulations, to wit laws?

Oil and gas are not our enemy. Both are why America is civilized to the point most Americans live a far better life using them than the people who lacked them lived. The vast improvement to life is fantastic. But attacked by Democrats. All because they are chickens by thinking that humans can actually manage global climate. This is crazy.

Every dictator has persuaded his public that what he does is actually just and for the good of the public. As Biden does daily.

 

[elektra]

How would Democrats prevent that from happening? If liberals and democrats had the power that you self-made victims claim they have, there'd be no ICE vehicles of fossil fuel power plants left.

And we would be living in the stone age, back to the horse and carriage

 

[elektra]

Give it up. You slipped. It is entirely possible and absolutely mandatory for humans to power our homes and our industry and our transportation without emitting greenhouse gases.

How do we power industry with green energy?

Why is it mandatory?

 

[Crick]

How do we power industry with green energy?

Why is it mandatory?

Asked and answered.

 

[Robert W]

How do we power industry with green energy?

Why is it mandatory?

Have you noticed that their energy is actually not green? They think that is a soothing color.

 

[elektra]

Asked and answered.

No lil crick, you have not answered and you will not because crick does not agree with facts

The fact is industry will never be powered with green energy

Why should the inefficient use of our natural resources be mandatory. Why should using inefficient green energy be mandatory.

The answer to why it must be mandatory is because the cost is to high, for the economy, for the environment

 

[Robert W]

No lil crick, you have not answered and you will not because crick does not agree with facts

The fact is industry will never be powered with green energy

Why should the inefficient use of our natural resources be mandatory. Why should using inefficient green energy be mandatory.

The answer to why it must be mandatory is because the cost is to high, for the economy, for the environment

I spent a day at Fallbrook to visit a woman. We had dinner at Temecula at Outback. Another trip I drove to Lawrence Welk Resort Village where I had a fine time.

 

[Crick]

No lil crick, you have not answered and you will not because crick does not agree with facts

The questions (how do we power industry with green energy and why its mandatory) have been discussed here in a thousand different threads. If you're suffering some sort of memory loss let us know. None of us are getting any younger.

The fact is industry will never be powered with green energy

It won't be powered by fossil fuels much longer.

Why should the inefficient use of our natural resources be mandatory

How did you get this stupid?

. Why should using inefficient green energy be mandatory.

Because global warming is going to fuck the world.

The answer to why it must be mandatory is because the cost is to high, for the economy, for the environment

The cost of dealing with global warming decades past when we should have gotten serious about it will likely beggar many an economy and the damage to the environment will be enormous.

 

[Robert W]

The questions (how do we power industry with green energy and why its mandatory) have been discussed here in a thousand different threads. If you're suffering some sort of memory loss let us know. None of us are getting any younger.

It won't be powered by fossil fuels much longer.

How did you get this stupid?

Because global warming is going to fuck the world.

The cost of dealing with global warming decades past when we should have gotten serious about it will likely beggar many an economy and the damage to the environment will be enormous.

I truly am sorry you believe what the politicians tell you. Especially when hundreds of scientists tell you not to panic over warming. And let's keep this in mind. Humans have no system to manage climate.

 

[elektra]

The questions (how do we power industry with green energy and why its mandatory) have been discussed here in a thousand different threads. If you're suffering some sort of memory loss let us know. None of us are getting any younger.

It won't be powered by fossil fuels much longer.

How did you get this stupid?

Because global warming is going to fuck the world.

The cost of dealing with global warming decades past when we should have gotten serious about it will likely beggar many an economy and the damage to the environment will be enormous.

You propose to use $200 trillion in natural resources that is only processed by heavy industry which is oil and coal and expect people to think that this will not pollute the world.

The Green Economy is the largest heavy polluting industry in the world. That is why it costs $200 trillion.

Cutting down the rainforest, trees, fir wind turbines and solar panels across the world is destroying the world.

There is no form of energy that uses more chemical that come from fossil fuels the elephant in the room, green energy.

Heavy Industry will be green and clean? But it is not and will never be.