500 Prominent Scientists warn U.N.---There is NO Climate Emergency

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Then why bring it up at all???

According to you we can't believe any scientist because they are ALL biased and funded by someone.

Excuse me if I take the side of a corporation that provides me with easy living and economic over the side that insists that I must be punished for my sins.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Who Exactly Pays these Alleged Global Warming Proponent " Scientists " Annual Salaries may I Ask ? Politics Not Involved At All in their Endowments ? .........Hmm......

a reply to: seagull

She's an actress, from a family of actors.

originally posted by: incoserv
BUT THE LITTLE AUTISTIC KID FROM SWEDEN SAYS IT'S TRUE, SO IT MUST BE!

(Plus, I wrote that in all caps, so that adds credibility to my claim.)

Or maybe it's the melting ice caps around the world, increased desertification of the planet, rising sea levels, record breaking temperatures, no? No, it's because a little girl said it. Grow up.

The biggest losers if the world decided to stop burning fossils fuels would be some of the most powerful corporations on the planet. And as the others have already pointed out, most of the counter arguments to climate change are funded by these corporations or people with connections to them.

The problem with people like you and the OP is that you're far too easily sucked in by BS. If you like the sound of something that's it, it must be gospel, no need to do any research of my own or even look into whoever it is who's feeding me the BS. I LIKE THE SOUND OF IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!

So many people are brainwashed and they don't even know it. I fear the world is doomed, but on the other hand, is our species even worth the effort to save?

Late to the party, but FINALLY it gets a news cycle - climate models are junk science, always have been and will continue to be as long as ther are lot$ ofdollar$ floating around to advance a political narrative using any means possible - including junk science.

I'd be happy to debate the inconcieveable neglect and gross misrepresentation of what currently pass for climate science models. Even the scientists in this article are complaining the models are immature - and that's a realization I wouldn't have expected from non-mathematicians. Ethical models account for all known factors, and do not eliminate or neglect measurements that don't support the predetermined modeling results (for money of cour$e!) of less-than-ethical "junk science" practitioners.

It's been admitted by Canadian Climate Scientists that the actual observed and measured historical data didn't fit their desired model results, so they deleted the real data and substituted estimated data that justified and conformed to their predetermined results expectation$. That's junk science. Period -mic drop-

ganjoa

a reply to: jamespond

Read the history of society in the Victorian Era

That is us and our society if we stop burning fossil fuels. Short brutal lives, filled with misery and sickness.

Its not the oil companies that will suffer if we stop burning fossil fuels - its us!!!

Why do you think Justin Trudeau bought a pipeline!

Talk about brain washed....you are a fool if you think renewables will do it for us

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: jamespond

Read the history of society in the Victorian Era

That is us and our society if we stop burning fossil fuels. Short brutal lives, filled with misery and sickness.

Its not the oil companies that will suffer if we stop burning fossil fuels - its us!!!

Why do you think Justin Trudeau bought a pipeline!

Talk about brain washed....you are a fool if you think renewables will do it for us

Actually, that is what we currently have, because we haven't moved into the 20th century and embraced new technology. Because there's more money to be made in suffering and pollution.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

OK - actually really - go read about life in the Victorian Era. Now you just sound stupid. There isn't a "new" technology we haven't invested in for a quite a while, no matter how ridiculous the theory.

a reply to: ganjoa

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

Climate NASA Gov link source

We should focus on the pollution aspects regarding our planet. Instead of trillions collected from carbon taxes, why is there not an initiative to plant more green plants and trees? Naturally, clean the atmosphere as nature intended. Pollution is controllable, climate is not. It is cyclic and will eventually change. Controlling pollution though only slows the eventuality.

500,000 years ago our planet heated up too according to Science, yet the climate change occurred naturally without unnatural input from man. Perhaps, our focus should be on preparing for the eventual fact that we cannot actually stop climate change, but can prepare mankind to be better prepared for it's eventual effects.




Edit: Though, reading article, one has to look at how we thwart Mother Nature natural climate control by concreting urban cities and roads. Reducing plant growth for sure. We should find a way to green up and shade cities more. They are causing more harm than good.

a reply to: jamespond

The biggest losers would be the hundreds of millions of people in China, India and Sub-saharan Africa that still have no electricity but are slowly moving towards some sort of infrastructure where they can have it. With coal (GASP) being the most economical means of providing it. But you want to keep those people in the stone age...you know, for the good of the planet. Makes sense. You're ok telling all those people they can't have electricity and the social/economical progress that comes with it in their communities and countries?

a reply to: acparker7

Hmmm....perhaps this is really all a conspiracy being pushed by the Amish!!!

a reply to: acparker7

Yes - let us not forget the suffering of people who have no access to electricity because the only electricity that was allowed to them was unstable renewables.

www.climatedepot.com...

Climate change supporters, you have alot of death and suffering to answer for.

Exactly where is the BETTER world you were building???

a reply to: underwerks


Yeah, who cares about the orangutans who are being made increasingly endangered by palm oil production in their former habitat and range? You must hate orangutans. Why do you hate orangutans?!



Who could hate this? You monster ...

a reply to: queenofswords

Right no climate emergency

yet we just keep going destroying the world as we go

US and Canada have lost 1 in 4 birds in the last 50 years

The study notes that birds are indicators of environmental health, signaling that natural systems across the U.S. and Canada are now being so severely impacted by human activities that they no longer support the same robust wildlife populations.

Aye so climate change may not be real to some , but its most certainly real in that we # every ecosystem on the planet just to make some money so we can be happy in the present , # everyone else in the future right!

Seriously denying climate change yeh sure , we may warm and cool , that fair , but to deny we have no impact on the world around is just blatantly ignorant and if you support that systems that allow this to happen then you are also a part of the problem.

We need to end the profit before planet and people model we all are a part of , in our consumer rich lifestyles , our throw away lifestyles of wastefulness , our arrogance and our unchecked ego;s will see the depletion of every animal species on earth.

Including humans , unless we act.

a reply to: sapien82

Maybe we should stop chopping them up in windmills that barely make a dent in our power needs then?

a reply to: sapien82

stop confusing climate change activism with pollution control

Carbon Dioxide is a harmless gas that makes up about 4 % of our earths atmosphere. Carbon is the building block of life on earth.

Birds are dying in canada because of turbines.

Imagine if the money spent to build turbines that even now are beyond their useful life had been spent to control pollution or clean up hotspots?

then we would have a better world and birds too

fcpp.org...

stop your activism until you actually understand the consequences.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


If you'd read the article about the bird declines it doesn't just involve turbines, it is linked to mans activities not just pollution from factories but
our habitat expansion , structures , domestic animals , pesticides , decline of insect populations, basically everything we do has an impact on the environment.

Climate change and pollution control are linked together as the environment is a very uniquely balanced complex organisation of symbiosis , when we started to mess with that without understanding the full impact we dropped the ball and are now struggling to recover.

yes the planet changes naturally but we also have an impact on the climate and our environments as a result we are destroying it for ourselves and for every other living thing on earth.


I fully understand the consequences , its the governments and big business that seem to ignore it for profit
at the expense of every living thing on earth , us included

you come back to me when you are breathing oxygen from tanks and tell me I was wrong.

Notice that the focus of the warning is about the impact to human lives, like we are the most important thing on the planet !

total arrogance , yes people are dying , but take away energy , and then you look at the other basic requirements, oxygen and clean water

humans can live without energy

but we cant live without clean air or water and neither can the things we eat , like plants and animals
they need clean air and water to live too

and as far as I know we already have started #ing both the atmosphere and the water

fracking for example is rampant across the globe and is polluting water tables everywhere.
Then we have heavy metals from heavy industry to support the continued consumer system , radioactive waste , pesticides , herbicides .
Greenhouse gases , other atmospheric pollutants .

a reply to: sapien82

How about if I just tell you that you are wrong right now?

I spent the last 40 years of my life protecting the environment! What were you doing?

The Environmental Protection Movement was hijacked for political purposes decades ago. Its no longer about pollution. Its about virtue signaling at any cost.

If it were about protecting the earth, bio fuels would have been banned 20 years ago. The fact that it was not is proof of climate change fraud. Bio fuels are used as a means to transfer money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

I am sorry that you can't see that but since you are so knowledge and dedicated to respecting the complexities of the environment, why aren't you demanding the bio fuels be banned?

a reply to: sapien82

oh boy - you are another one that needs to learn about human life and the suffering before fossil fuels were harnessed.

come on its not that hard - it was only about 100 years ago.

How about you just take a visit to a third world country that does not have a stable energy source and live there for about 6 months.

What is the matter with you? Can't you think at all.

We cleaned up the water and the air because we have fossil fuels! Imagine what the air was like when we all burned wood and coal.

My god - can't you look around and see for yourself that your premise is absolute nonsense.

At the start of the industrial revolution, there were people who decided that progress meant loss of jobs and we didn't need all that progress.

They were called luddites - look it up