500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To the readers here.

One of the major points that the scientists make is . . . .
  • Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle’s response?
This is a claim about scientists, not about first term Congress members.
(And its a false claim besides.)
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

Remember well LeafByNiggle’s words.

“A false claim”.

So no scientists have made any “uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming” right LeafByNiggle??

Just freshman congresswomen?

No false claims from the scientific community?
That is what you are saying. Right?
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
To the readers here.

One of the major points that the scientists make is . . . .
  • Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
Click to expand...
I’m not sure any scientist actually said that. It is in a letter that supposedly 500 scientists signed, but so far this list of scientists signing, as well and the conditions under which they were solicited, remain proprietary.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
I’m not sure any scientist actually said that
Click to expand...
Then WHY say it was false?

And WHY NOT look at the Ambassadors? Some of which ARE scientists (so much for “any”).
 
drcube said:
Yep, definitely curious to know who signed it. @LeafByNiggle is right. This ‘petition’ is useless unless we know the names of the scientists.
Click to expand...
You’re just deflecting.

Respond to the explicit points they make.
 
Cathoholic said:
Predictions that don’t pan out are fake science.
Click to expand...
But the ones I refer to do pan out.
We do not have all the variables.
Click to expand...
Nobody say we do, not even me.
If you know all the variables, and can analyze them into a predictable pattern, you can continue to predict the results . . . . Accurately.
Click to expand...
Even if you don’t know all the variables you can still predict results that are as accurate as the theory allows, if not perfectly accurate. No one every says their climate projections are perfectly accurate. That’s why they always specific error bars around projections.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
drcube:
Yep, definitely curious to know who signed it. @LeafByNiggle is right. This ‘petition’ is useless unless we know the names of the scientists.
Click to expand...
You’re just deflecting.

Respond to the explicit points they make.
Click to expand...
They don’t make any points. They only make claims.
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
So you see their never was a “collision with Earth”. It never did “smash into the Caribbean”. A rock just 3-meters long burned up immediately upon grazing the atmosphere. If you were looking for egg on the face of NASA . . .
Click to expand...
I agree with your criticism of the title.

But they miscalculsted the trajectory.

Also you are appealing to an addition that shows another mistake from NASA. But you forgot to mention that part.
In addition the introduction stated “AN ASTEROID which came crashing into Earth and NASA had no idea it was coming reiterates the need to keep a closer eye on the sky in case a massive space rock comes hurtling towards our planet.” In fact as our article said the asteroid did hit the atmosphere and broke up above the Caribbean.
Click to expand...
.

The mistake was that they picked up on it much later than they should have (which may be part of the reason for the erroneous trajectory calculation in the first place).

As I said. I agree the title of the article needs work.
But NASA needs work too.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
I’m not sure any scientist actually said that
Click to expand...
It is the content of the claim itself that I was saying was false.
And WHY NOT look at the Ambassadors? Some of which ARE scientists (so much for “any”).
Click to expand...
OK, a few Ambassadors who may have had some science training but are not longer working as scientists may have said those things. Certainly not 500 though.
Click to expand...
 
Leaf . . .
Certainly not 500 though.
Click to expand...
No.

If you are going to impugn these Ambassadors on this point you’ll need to back it up.

If they said there were 500+ scientists, there were 500+ scientists.

If you deny that, you either call all the Ambassadors liars, in which case I want evidence. . . .

. . . Or you are just putting forth ipse dixit.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . .
So you see their never was a “collision with Earth”. It never did “smash into the Caribbean”. A rock just 3-meters long burned up immediately upon grazing the atmosphere. If you were looking for egg on the face of NASA . . .
Click to expand...
They calculated it as close as possible, given the very few observations that were available. And they never said it was more accurate than it was. There are always small errors in measurements. NASA does as good as job as possible.
Also you are appealing to an addition that shows another mistake from NASA. But you forgot to mention that part.
Click to expand...
It is not a “mistake” to have a 3-meter rock hit the atmosphere at a place that was not exactly predicted by NASA.
In addition the introduction stated “AN ASTEROID which came crashing into Earth and NASA had no idea it was coming reiterates the need to keep a closer eye on the sky in case a massive space rock comes hurtling towards our planet.”
Click to expand...
Yes, that may be. That doesn’t mean NASA was incompetent. If we think it is important to have better information on rocks that might hit the Earth then perhaps we need to invest in some longer range monitoring equipment, launch more satellites that circulate beyond the orbit of the moon, and detect asteroids when they are farther out. With data like that I’m sure NASA could do a much better job. But that takes funding and a commitment from on high to make it a priority. Are you in favor of that? Or do you think NASA should have been able to predict the exact impact spot given only what data it currently gets from systems that are currently deployed?
As I said. I agree the title of the article needs work.
But NASA needs work too.
Click to expand...
You mean NASA needs more money. You can’t make the kind of predictions you expect without more data, and data costs money - lots of it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
If you are going to impugn these Ambassadors on this point you’ll need to back it up.

If they said there were 500+ scientists, there were 500+ scientists.

If you deny that, you either call all the Ambassadors liars, in which case I want evidence. . . .
Click to expand...
Yet you have no problem calling Michael Mann a liar and just about every other climate scientist who predicts global warming a liar. Come on now! Claims need to be backed up. Asking for proof is not impugning anyone. As Ronald Reagan said “Trust, but verify!”
 
They calculated it as close as possible, given the very few observations that were available.
Click to expand...
Huh. The whole reason for so “few observations” is because they missed it.

Go back and read what they said.

I stand by what I have asserted.

Cathoholic . . . .
As I said. I agree the title of the article needs work.
But NASA needs work too.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle’s response?

More Government. More taxes.
You mean NASA needs more money.
Click to expand...
No LeafByNiggle. I don’t mean that.
 
LeafByNiggle . . . .
Yet you have no problem calling Michael Mann a liar . . .
Click to expand...
Do you think when Mann was running around saying he was a Nobel Prize recipient he was telling the truth?

Is THAT what you are saying?

.
. . . and just about every other climate scientist who predicts global warming a liar.
Click to expand...
This is non-sense. I have gone out of my way here to AFFIRM real science.
I have affirmed greenhouse gas emission.
I have talked about the NEED for new ideas. Especially as it relates to carbon sequestration.

I have gone so far toward the science that I wouldn’t be surprised if some readers think of me as one of the “alarmists”.

And fine if they want to think that.

But what I ALSO insist upon is the APPLICATION of that science, a factual representation of that science and COMMON SENSE.

It is common sense, that Israel and China do not think their military islands that are man-made . . . will be underwater any time soon.

And I have asked dozens of times WHY that is. And nobody gives a reasoned answer.

I asked WHY Obama would spend millions of his personal wealth on a Martha’s Vinyard mansion if he thought it was going to be underwater next month or year or decade.

And the obvious answer, according to his actions is . . . He doesn’t think that. He may say things like that. But he doesn’t believe what he is saying.

He is creating his own “reality”. (Just like Mann did with his, ah hem, “Nobel Prize”.)

Which is what leftists do.

That’s why some say they were a guy two weeks ago, a gal last week, and back to a guy this week (gender fluidity).

And other leftists not only militantly support such thinking, they will even ban you on Facebook or Twitter if you point out the delusional aspects of it there.

They are frequently vengeful. Which is WHY 500 scientists are so quiet and others won’t even go as far as an insulated-by-ambassador, rebuke.

The same is true about the global warming industrial complex.

It is a create-your-own-reality motif. And as leftists often do, they get agitated, when you do not swallow their self-delusions.

The same common sense can be applied to the Paris Accords.

If you guys really believe the planet is on the precipice of some sort of uninhabitability, you cannot give China and India passes because “America needs to lead by example” (AKA more taxes on Americans and MORE Growth of Government).

That is political. Not scientific.

What difference does “example” make if the globe is tossed into the fires of conflagration because of my neighbor’s SUV, but not Hillary taking a private jet trip for a 20 mile ride on Martha’s Vineyard.

It is bogus LeafByNiggle.

More and more people are seeing it.

So the “answer” your guys give . . . is to lurch further to the left, and go to work on the long term. Go to work intergenerationally.

Go to work coopting children as propaganda, and have schools allow the children to
skip physics class to go out and be “activists”.
And pretend that is favoring scientific causes.

It is fake LeafByNiggle.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
The whole reason for so “few observations” is because they missed it.
Click to expand...
No, they missed it because there were so few observations available. Do you have any idea how hard it is to see a 3 meter rock from a distance of 239,000 miles? Why did you miss it? Don’t you have a pair of binoculars?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
Do you have any idea how hard it is to see a 3 meter Rock from a distance of 239,000 miles?
Click to expand...
Yes. They said so in the article.

But they blew it.

They did not detect it when they should have (just read the article. The admissions from NASA are right there).

If these calculations and observations are so extremely difficult (and they ARE extremely difficult), how much MORE is it to attempt to predict climate trajectories?

Why not apply your own reasoning to your own points here Leaf?

I agree with much of your reasoning. But I gotta tell you.

I do not agree with your conclusions drawn from those reasonings many times in this area.

And of course, James Hansen (formerly of NASA) has also caused a lot of NASA questions in this global warming area. I have more respect for James Hansen though, than I do Michael Mann (who of course is NOT from NASA).


stevengoddard.wordpress.com

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up. In 2008, Hansen wrote abou…
stevengoddard.wordpress.com stevengoddard.wordpress.com
 
Last edited:
Speaking of “policy” the UN talking about the Paris Accords and not mentioning China (the world’s biggest polluter) and India given a pass from emissions standards (at least until 2030) in a document such as below is perplexing. At least to me.

.

The Paris Agreement​

Paris Agreement: essential elements

The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and for the first time brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort. . . .

Nationally determined contributions

The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts.

Further information on NDCs can be found here.

In 2018, Parties will take stock of the collective efforts in relation to progress towards the goal set in the Paris Agreement and to inform the preparation of NDCs. . . .
Click to expand...
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement

China and India were not even explicitly mentioned here in this UN article as far as no responsibility to curtail emissions!

If I remember correctly, China even claims “developing country” status.

This is not the way international policymaking should work.
 
If you want to read rebuttals to all the main arguments used by climate change denialists, there’s a good article on RationalWiki: Global warming - RationalWiki

I have to admit, I usually don’t try to argue with climate change denialists because it’s almost always pointless trying to argue with people who refuse to accept scientifically proven facts. It’s very similar to arguing with anti-vaxxers (curiously, there seems to be a significant overlap between climate change denialists and anti-vaxxers). It’s a common denialist tactic to place an unfeasible burden of proof on anyone they argue with. The fact that I am not a professional climate scientist and therefore not personally able to refute each and every argument advanced by the denialists does not mean that the denialists are right, as the contrary case has already been established by the overwhelming consensus of opinion among professional climate scientists.

It’s irrelevant whether or not Michael Mann falsely claimed to be a Nobel laureate, because the reality of anthropogenic global warming has been established by virtually every serious scientist in the field. One can easily point to the fact, for example, that the current president of the Royal Society and all his living predecessors accept the consensus position on climate change.
 
Londoner . . .
It’s a common denialist tactic to place an unfeasible burden of proof on anyone they argue . . .
Click to expand...
I’d be happy to have a feasable burden of proof.

Do you think a tax increase will save the planet Londoner?

Do you think we need MORE Government to save the globe?

How about International Governance?

Do we need that to curtail the imminent conflagration of our planet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top