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

[rangerrebew]

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’
 
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.24 Sep 2019
 
More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

Just as 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg addressed the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York accusing world leaders of robbing her of her future, scientists were begging the United Nations to keep hysteria from obscuring facts.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “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 mitigation.”

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/24/500-scientists-write-u-n-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

[Sanguine]

But....concensus!

[truth_seeker]

There is a Danish "scholar" named Bjorn Lomborg, who is very good on climate change.

[dfwgator]

But...but.....I thought the "Science Was Settled"â„¢

[IsailedawayfromFR]

These guys will not get any future UN grants, now will they?

[Wingnut]

Much better piece on the "letter" here.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-letter-to-un-scientists-say-there-is-no-climate-emergency_3093580.html


September 24, 2019 Updated: September 24, 2019
A group of scientists and professionals in climate and related fields sent a letter to the United Nations on Sept. 23 declaring that “there is no climate emergency.”

“The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose,” the letter, sent to Secretary-General António Guterres, states. “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.”

The letter is signed by a number of prominent scientists and professionals from related fields, including atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen and applied geology professor Alberto Prestininzi. The effort is led by professor Guus Berkhout, a Dutch engineer who served as professor of acoustics, geophysics, and innovation management at Delft University of Technology.

Berkhout intends to release the full list of 500 signatories in Oslo on Oct. 18.

The letter states that current climate policies undermine the economic system and put lives at risk by denying countries affordable 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,” the letter states.

[Smokin Joe]

Over 34,000 of us told them not to sign on to the Kyoto accords. Does anyone seriously think another 500 will suddenly sway them?

[Sanguine]

Over 34,000 of us told them not to sign on to the Kyoto accords. Does anyone seriously think another 500 will suddenly sway them?

Probably not, but it's still refreshing when people do the right thing.

[GrouchoTex]

Probably not, but it's still refreshing when people do the right thing.

Rare as well

[OfTheCross]

But....concensus!

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

97% is consensus.

[Smokin Joe]

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

97% is consensus.

Here's the catch. "Actively publishing climate scientists".
Where do the scientists publish? In peer reviewed journals.
Who does the peer reviews? The ones who believe in (or promote) Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change.

Who doesn't get published in those same journals?

Climate Scientists who aren't in agreement with the warmists Anthropogenic Climate Change believers promoters.

Therefore, those Climate Scientists aren't actively publishing, They're locked out, unlike the ones who are on board with the scam.

It's the Hadron Collider of circular reasoning.

[OfTheCross]

Here's the catch. "Actively publishing climate scientists".
Where do the scientists publish? In peer reviewed journals.
Who does the peer reviews? The ones who believe in (or promote) Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change.

Who doesn't get published in those same journals?

Climate Scientists who aren't in agreement with the warmists Anthropogenic Climate Change believers promoters.

Therefore, those Climate Scientists aren't actively publishing, They're locked out, unlike the ones who are on board with the scam.

It's the Hadron Collider of circular reasoning.

Just as there are reputable Conservative think tanks and publications. There are Liberal ones.

Just as there peer-reviewed Scientific Publications that support climate change there must be those that oppose it.

My question to you is: where can I find those peer-reviewed sources/studies that do not promote the Climate Change idea?

Genuine question, I'd like to do some reading.

[Elderberry]

No Tricks Zone By P Gosselin on 24. September 2019

Normally the UN General Assembly is no place for hysterical activists to blow off their anger, aggression, threats  and doomsday fantasies.

In a letter to Secretary General Guterres, 500 scientists are now requesting that the UN end the hysteria and return to rational dialogue.

More than 500 prominent scientists from all over the world, among them distinguished MIT climate scientist Prof. Richard Lindzen, are urging the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a further, de-politicised discussion of the climate issue, in which alternative scientific views are also given a voice.

A UN climate meeting will be held in New York on 23 September. To this end, CLINTEL has sent two registered letters, one to the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, and one to the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, together with the text of the European Climate Declaration (see below).

This also includes the explicit request to organise a joint meeting with world-class scientists. The letter follows:

Your Excellencies,

There is no climate emergency

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 on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.

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.

We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.

We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!

Please let us know your thoughts about such a joint meeting.

There is no climate emergency

A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate polities 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 mitigation.

More: https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/24/no-climate-emergency-mit-climate-expert-500-prominent-global-scientists-write-in-letter-to-un/

[Smokin Joe]

Just as there are reputable Conservative think tanks and publications. There are Liberal ones.

Just as there peer-reviewed Scientific Publications that support climate change there must be those that oppose it.

My question to you is: where can I find those peer-reviewed sources/studies that do not promote the Climate Change idea?

Genuine question, I'd like to do some reading.

It is tough to get published in peer review publications for the reasons I noted. A good place to start, however (although not peer reviewed) is here
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 Note others who decry the entire anthropogenic climate change bit in the sidebar. and here:https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
The problem is made even tougher by the repeated 'adjustment' of raw data by those claiming climate change exists, failure to produce models or data sets for independent review make it difficult not only to repeat their results, but to refute them.

You will find that between the media politicization of the issue, governmental power plays, and the domination of universities by Leftists who are using the issue to raise money (like Solyndra's 'donation' to the DNC just after being guaranteed government loans, just before bankruptcy), and to concentrate power, from the UN down (control access to energy and you control life: food production, industry, mobility, heat, light, life death--a totalitarian's wet dream), that those of us who decry anthropogenic forcing in climate cycles are derided in the popular press, and even search engines make it more difficult to track down articles.

When and where such are to be found, they will be attacked as being "Climate Deniers".

As a geologist, understanding that the Vostok core data shows a trailing indicator, an effect of decreasing CO2 solubility with ocean warming, this graph is enough to indicate that CO2 is not a forcing agent, but a symptom.
(from https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Noting that the cycles have occurred before, long before anthropognic effects were significant enough to even be considered a variable, is enough to tell me that we are looking at natural cycles, and not human activity.

Note that humans have flourished during warmer periods, and that no one can tell you what the 'correct' temperature for the Earth should be, and the issue becomes a lever by which those who seek profit and power (by claiming they can preserve a planetary dynamic system in stasis) can manipulate the masses with promises of apocalypse in just another ten or twelve or fifty years.

[sneakypete]

But...but...but,there are BILLIONS of DOLLARS at stake here! There are whole industries that owe their very existence on that scam!

How is Goober Gore going to be able to keep his private jet so he can fly all over the world shrieking about how we should all ride around in pedal cars?

You don't expect these privileged insiders to go into bankruptcy and get real jobs and do real work,do you?

What are you,barbarians?

[Smokin Joe]

But...but...but,there are BILLIONS of DOLLARS at stake here! There are whole industries that owe their very existence on that scam!

How is Goober Gore going to be able to keep his private jet so he can fly all over the world shrieking about how we should all ride around in pedal cars?

You don't expect these privileged insiders to go into bankruptcy and get real jobs and do real work,do you?

What are you,barbarians?

Barbarians? Well, not exactly, just a descendant of barbarians, which might make me a Latter Day Barbarian.

That knocking at the gate ain't the Avon Lady.

[OfTheCross]

It is tough to get published in peer review publications for the reasons I noted. A good place to start, however (although not peer reviewed) is here
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 Note others who decry the entire anthropogenic climate change bit in the sidebar. and here:https://www.heartland.org/Center-Climate-Environment/index.html
The problem is made even tougher by the repeated 'adjustment' of raw data by those claiming climate change exists, failure to produce models or data sets for independent review make it difficult not only to repeat their results, but to refute them.

You will find that between the media politicization of the issue, governmental power plays, and the domination of universities by Leftists who are using the issue to raise money (like Solyndra's 'donation' to the DNC just after being guaranteed government loans, just before bankruptcy), and to concentrate power, from the UN down (control access to energy and you control life: food production, industry, mobility, heat, light, life death--a totalitarian's wet dream), that those of us who decry anthropogenic forcing in climate cycles are derided in the popular press, and even search engines make it more difficult to track down articles.

When and where such are to be found, they will be attacked as being "Climate Deniers".

As a geologist, understanding that the Vostok core data shows a trailing indicator, an effect of decreasing CO2 solubility with ocean warming, this graph is enough to indicate that CO2 is not a forcing agent, but a symptom.
(from https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Noting that the cycles have occurred before, long before anthropognic effects were significant enough to even be considered a variable, is enough to tell me that we are looking at natural cycles, and not human activity.

Note that humans have flourished during warmer periods, and that no one can tell you what the 'correct' temperature for the Earth should be, and the issue becomes a lever by which those who seek profit and power (by claiming they can preserve a planetary dynamic system in stasis) can manipulate the masses with promises of apocalypse in just another ten or twelve or fifty years.

Thank you, kindly

I've saved the video and will view it soon to start my inquiry