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.
Did we get the list of names of the scientists who signed this yet? All 500?
 
drcube . . .
Did we get the list of names of the scientists who signed this yet? All 500?
Click to expand...
.

Did we address the concerns summarized by the bullet points raised by these scientists yet? Any seven of them?
 
So you don’t know the names yet?
Click to expand...
So you haven’t addressed the issues yet?

Here they are again . . .
  • Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
  • The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed
  • The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
  • The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
  • Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.
  • CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth.
  • There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent
  • There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
Yeah, I am more curious about the names. Did you get those yet?
Click to expand...
Yea, hard to deflect into ad hominems if you can’t get those names.

Now you are left with trying to ignore responding to what the letter says.
Do you feel disempowered?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Cathoholic:

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

Click to expand...
How was this “letter” to the UN organized? Was it by e-mail, or did the individual scientists each print it out, sign it, put a stamp on it, and mail it? Was there an option for disagreeing with the letter? Or is the only option to agree or do nothing? Where is the list of signatories? What are their qualifications? How were those responses vetted?

So many questions, so few answers.

Is there any reason this “letter” should be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I take it that you didn’t read the post addressed to you in this thread
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
They aren’t. Do you, personally think that life on earth will end in 10-15 years? The majority of young voters do. And I suspect the majority of children do. Where did they get this idea from, do you think? Perhaps responsible scientists ought to reel this in just a tad? Oh, wait. 500 concerned scientists and professionals have complained to the UN The list of scientists. Frightening children and young adults, minimally, verges on child abuse, no? It seems we ought to protect c…
Click to expand...
where I posted the list of signatories and their qualifications?
For your convenience…

LeafByNiggle said:
Is there any reason this “letter” should be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
How about because their points are reasonable and not alarmist?

From the same thread, where I posted this.
40.png
What do you think of climate change? Social Justice
These 500 scientists seem far more responsible and credible than your alarmist cohort. A list of their key points… Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of…
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Frankly, I think the most accessible scientific method available to you to refute global warming would be to conduct a survey comparable to Cook and the other surveys of a random sampling of scientists showing that most of them do not support global warming. Maybe you don’t have the resources to do that, but I’m sure Anthony Watts does and I’m sure Breitbart does. So that leads to the question, “Why haven’t they done so?”
Click to expand...
List of 31 000 who do not agree that human caused global warming is a serious issue.

30,000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming - The Heartland Institute

The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31,072 American scientists who reject the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is
www.heartland.org

You have seen it, right?

I’ll spare you the effort to retort.

Done here…

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

Okay, so not all were climatologists or those in related fields.

But as the critical article states 12% were. That would be 3720 climatologists and those in related fields. A fair number, no?

Cook’s paper found that 97.1% of the 11,944 scientific papers he examined “explicitly or implicitly suggested that human activity was responsible for some warming.”

What did he mean by “implicitly suggested” human activity was responsible? What precisely is “some warming?” How did he quantify that? Could be anything.

Most of the 31, 000 and the 500 on the two lists of critics of warming would probably assent to “some warming.” I know Freeman Dyson does, as does Richard Lindzen. “Some warming” doesn’t add up to significant or even critical warming. Certainly not catastrophic end of life in 12 years stuff.

By the way, John Cook is a cartoonist, not a scientist, and he made the claim that 97% of scientists would agree before he even did the research. Prescient, I suppose.

Here…
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-97-climate-consensus-myth/

Edit: There appears to be some confusion regarding John Cook. There is another Australian, a cognitive scientist, who some have confused with the John Cook, climate activist and cartoonist, who wrote the paper touting 97% of scientists, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
Is the twelve-year time table REALLY the end this time? What do you think?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you quite understand what the 12-year deadline means. It does not mean the end is coming in 12 years. It simply means that if carbon emissions remain on their present trajectory for another 12 years, then there will be no way to avoid a temperature rise of +2 degrees Celsius. That’s it.
Click to expand...
So what is Greta complaining about?

2°C+ would be welcome. We have just broken a record low temperature record tonight -11°C a record that has stood since the mid-fifties. Communities around us have broken low temperature records from the 1920s.

Carbon emissions sound good to me if they will help us keep warm. I just doubt that they will.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There are no arguments, only assertions.
Click to expand...
ROFL, more deflection.

If you disputed the assertion, or ‘refuted’ it.
We would have the beginnings of a discourse or ‘argument’
Click to expand...
You really think it is helpful? OK, here are your bullet points “refuted”:
  • Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming
They do (but they aren’t exaggerations)
  • The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed
True, but so what?
  • The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
If this were nothing more than a “recovery” from the Little Ice Age, we would not have a temperature rise that is about 3 times as great as the difference between the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period that preceded it.
  • The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
No, it just tells us that there are uncertainties in the projection, but we knew that and always acknowledged that.
  • Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools.
Regards policy, not science.
  • CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth.
Silly misrepresentation of scientists’ view!
  • There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent
There are good reasons to believe they will.
  • There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Policy statement, not a statement about science.

There. Do you feel enlightened? (After considering these bullet points, I am not surprised that the 500 scientists, if they really exist, are embarrassed to have their name associated with this particular effort, whatever their view on global warming.)
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
List of 31 000 who do not agree that human caused global warming is a serious issue.

News - 30,000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming | Heartland Institute
Click to expand...
More unscientifically gathered data? There is such a thing as scientific survey methods. There are books on the subject. There are classes taught in college on the subject. The method above would be a good midterm exam question: "Describe the shortcomings of the survey methods employed in this Heartland Institute “survey”. At least Cook attempted to follow a scientific survey method. These guys aren’t even trying.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
So you haven’t addressed the issues yet?
Click to expand...
No, it is important in science to know who said this. Otherwise, you don’t debate it. Besides, I want to see if I know anyone on the list.
Theo520 said:
Yea, hard to deflect into ad hominems if you can’t get those names.

Now you are left with trying to ignore responding to what the letter says.
Do you feel disempowered?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t feel disempowered at all. @LeafByNiggle seems to be handling the debate side fine, so I am not needed here. But I do want to know the names. Do you know them?
Cathoholic said:
Now that the scientists are named, these guys here can finally address the issues (152 posts later).

@drcube. You are up.
Click to expand...
Oh, good. I’ll look through it.
 
Bummer, I don’t know anyone. Man, there are a lot of retired in that list.
 
drcube said:
Bummer, I don’t know anyone. Man, there are a lot of retired in that list.
Click to expand...
From the article:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-97-climate-consensus-myth/
Many scientists have been afraid to disagree with those in power out of fear that their careers will be ruined. Since the global warming hypothesis surfaced about 40 years ago, many meteorologists and climatologists have waited until after they retired to speak up.
Click to expand...
HarryStotle said:
Here…

favicon.ico
Principia Scientific International

Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth | PSI Intl​

MYTH: A 97% consensus [agreement] of scientists say that Earth’s climate
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top