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

originally posted by: queenofswords
It seems the Climate Change Agenda that seeks to upend the world's entire economic priorities is causing some real problems.

We have the fanatical hyper emotional side that tells us we will go over the precipice in 12 years if we don't pour trillions of dollars into their worldwide "slush" funds so they can set up big international meet and greets to talk about what needs to be done, and who is going to manage the various programs and, of course, The Money.

We have children hyperventilating and stressing over thoughts of being swallowed up in chaos and mayhem, and either drowning, starving, or burning to a crisp.

Some parents and teachers keep the narrative going by using students to stand on street corners with The-End-is-Nigh placards and You-Must-Repent-or-be-Destroyed signs. They even allow time off from class to do their preaching for them.

The PR has been superb. I don't know what public relations firms are working this, but, there is even talk of criminalizing climate deniers like Germany does Holocaust deniers.

But, some are bravely stepping forward and exposing some of the b-spit.

A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, has sent a registered letter to the Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres. They warn the Secretary-General that “[c]urrent climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”

They add: “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 European Climate Declaration sent as part of the letter to Guterres was drafted by climate ambassadors from 14 countries. The official presentation of the Declaration (including the release of the full list of signees) will be held in Oslo on October 18 during the Natural Variability and Tolerance conference. More press conferences will follow in Brussels and Rome.

clintel.nl...

The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

“There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.”

www.breitbart.com...

Letter to UN Secy.

IMO, we are doing a terrible disservice to our youth by projecting our own hyper emotional fears onto them about global warming, climate change, melting ice caps, rising oceans. This is what fanatics of end times religions do. Armageddon is just around the corner and you will be sucked away by a giant tornado or huge tidal wave or die from burning to death as the earth scorches.

Teachers and parents that do this to children are abusive, imo, plain and simple.

All scientists ARE NOT on the same page. But the push by the Agenda-makers that seek Big Climate Slush Funds to dip their power-grabbing fingers into are milking it for all its worth. Just stop it already.

Interesting topic. One wonders what the end goal is with this climate change agenda, it sure looks fishy considering its prevalence and those who are pushing it. It makes one appreciate Trump more in being one of the few major leaders who stand against it.

Misleading and altered headline, plus altering of contents (in this case the amount of scientists) = nonsense thread that needs to be trashed.

If you have to literally alter and invent things and pretend it's from the source, then your argument is lost before it has even begun.

A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout

So... this letter is from the Shell employee who stated that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. How many of that 500 are scientists and how many are professionals and what are professional of? Lawyers? Is Guus Berkhout a scientist? I thought he was an engineer so technically speaking I guess he is. It just makes me wonder if anyone on that list can be considered even remotely in the field of climate science.

brietbart, so you know its fake, and probably fake scientist.

a reply to: queenofswords

“However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Planting trees is not that costly if we all contribute globally and that is where we all should start this mitigation.

If natural climate solutions are mobilized over the next 10 years, they could provide 37 percent of the needed carbon mitigation for global climate targets. But if action is delayed until after 2030, that number drops to 33 percent because the emissions we’re trying to curb would increase and many of these natural areas themselves would degrade and become less effective. If we wait until 2050, the number drops to 22 percent. In other words, the longer we wait, the less nature can do.

www.nature.org...

Calculate your carbon footprint to see how many trees are needed to offset.

www.conservation.org...#/

Also, I notice that "top" scientists agree that there is an emergency, so perhaps the 500 scientists you mention are more on the 'bottom'.

The assessment from the world’s top climate experts and scientific organizations comes not just ahead of the UN summit, but also against the backdrop of last week’s global ‘climate strike,’ which saw millions of students across the world take to the streets to demand real action from politicians and big corporations to reverse the impacts of what UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called a “climate emergency.”

news.un.org...

I also think they need to do more R&D on batteries for electric cars to bring the cost way down because I want an affordable Tesla.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I thought he was an engineer

Science!

It just makes me wonder if anyone on that list can be considered even remotely in the field of climate science.

So what? This is not a PR hitjob from Big Oil cuz it can't be. And a dozen is the new 500 since orange is the new black, try to keep up?

Bakedbeard. A legit sauce, obviously. And prominent!

originally posted by: okrian
This climate emergency denial group is run by a Shell Oil guy (and decidedly not made up of prominent scientists). Good lord.

What do you expect from a group that takes 9,000 pages of 'Q the Insider' as gospel. I remember when the tenet of ATS was 'Deny Ignorance' but that was exchanged for 'Embrace Ignorance' and deny facts.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I am not suggesting for one moment that we immediately halt the production of fossil fuels as I said in my previous post , it will require a transition . It would cause a global financial crash if that were to happen instantly or bans imposed.
Its unsustainable and completely ridiculous to suggest anything of the sort, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Fracking is banned in Scotland , because we see the damage that it does to the environment overseas in the US and at home down south in England. As the technology is relatively new and can cause more problems than benefits.
So no thanks

Scotland has an energy strategy to be carbon neutral by 2050
the gas we get is primarily from our own natural gas fields in the north sea and on land , from bedrock methane fields , not from shale fracking.
However as outlined in our energy strategy we have biogas generation from land fill and other purpose built facilities to produce and store biogas, and we are also converting our entire electrical and gas networks to be as low carbon energy and as carbon neutral as possible

Here is Scotlands energy strategy plan up to 2030

Scotlands electrictity and gas strategy up to 2030


Your questions in response to me about fossil fuels are just ridiculous , obviously our species is completely dependent on fossil fuels and products derived from fossil fuels because our governments have designed this system to be used as the value of our currency as well. It is so deeply entwined with the global monetary systems that we cannot just easily escape it .

It will take a lot of work and a great concerted effort from our species to slowly wean ourselves from the teat of hydrocarbon products.


"I have supported a system that denies fossil fuels to third world countries "

Is that a fact ? you know my voting history do you ?
how do you know I support a system of government that denies fossil fuels to the third world ?


Anyway you mentioned Lake Erie was dead, I mean the band aid was the dumping of sewage and pollutants in there in the first place was the band aid , not the treatment of the sewage

Honestly you just read what I wrote and then take your own meaning from it.
You are completely taking what I said out of context.
You know full well I am for the betterment of the planet , not the opposite as expressed in my posts in this thread and others across ATS.
so why would you assume I thought treating the water in lake Erie was a band aid ?
unless of course you are only using that as a vehicle to paint me in a bad light to help your argument .

Anyway I drew your card the first post
Immediately you went for Age as a logical argument to bolster your own position , I am too young to know anything right ?

a reply to: 1point92AU

You know its the truth, they the Oil /gas conglomerates have denied it for so long as to stall so they can set up the system that ushers in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable , they just need the time to build all the infrastructure and develop tech to make it all possible.

At the same time allow government to introduce legislation so that they can draw taxes during the transition
all so that no one loses out vast wealth which otherwise could be obtained from the remaining fossil fuels.

Probably why they shelved all those renewables projects that we saw over time, they bought up the patents, because they knew a switch then would lose them billions , possibly trillions.

My friends work in the oil and gas industry, one of my closest friends works for Royal Dutch shell on a purpose built rig production facility for a new type of liquid cooled gas which is easier to manufacture and take from the earth than traditional crude oil and natural gas.

He always updates me on the new technology they are developing or testing to usher in the age of renewables.

also 500 scientists out of a total population of about 7.8 million scientists globally isn't even 1% of the scientific community
its 0.006%

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Oil companies don't have a stranglehold on the world? WTF are you smoking. They quite clearly do!!!

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Oil companies don't have a stranglehold on the world? WTF are you smoking. They quite clearly do!!!

I would have to agree that they most certainly do economically (jobs). Maybe he is smoking something laced with LDS.

a reply to: underwerks

So, let me see... scientists are anti-scientists because they might be biased?
But other scientists are real scientists because they are noble and pure with no bias, right?
The real scientists are the ones telling you what you believe in.
That seems to be your argument.

Just wondering if you thought it through.
Have you managed to refute the work of the 500 scientists, then? Or are you actually just a science denier after all?

There is no scientific consensus on AGW and there never was - and we're not all going to die in 12 years.

originally posted by: sapien82
also 500 scientists out of a total population of about 7.8 million scientists globally isn't even 1% of the scientific community
its 0.006%

It beats the 90 odd scientists that who were used to suggest that there was a worldwide scienific consensus.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: sapien82
also 500 scientists out of a total population of about 7.8 million scientists globally isn't even 1% of the scientific community
its 0.006%

It beats the 90 odd scientists that who were used to suggest that there was a worldwide scienific consensus.

Were those 90 odd scientists deemed the best and most reliable?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: sapien82
also 500 scientists out of a total population of about 7.8 million scientists globally isn't even 1% of the scientific community
its 0.006%

It beats the 90 odd scientists that who were used to suggest that there was a worldwide scienific consensus.

Were those 90 odd scientists deemed the best and most reliable?

By who?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: sapien82
also 500 scientists out of a total population of about 7.8 million scientists globally isn't even 1% of the scientific community
its 0.006%

It beats the 90 odd scientists that who were used to suggest that there was a worldwide scienific consensus.

Were those 90 odd scientists deemed the best and most reliable?

By who?

By climate scientists, who else knows better?

a reply to: InTheLight

Yeh I am all good with that initiative , Scottish forestry just planted 2 million trees

this pales in comparison to the staggering volume of trees planted in Inida for the world record.

220 million trees in one day !

Inida plants 220 million trees in a single day

Scottish forestry aims to re-forest the highlands and central belt as best they can to offset our carbon/ greenhouse emissions.

a reply to: UKTruth

yes this is just as equally silly !

to suggest there is a global consensus when the people reporting this consensus aren't even a majority in the field of study.

Kind of defeating what consensus means eh! hahahah

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: InTheLight

Yeh I am all good with that initiative , Scottish forestry just planted 2 million trees

this pales in comparison to the staggering volume of trees planted in Inida for the world record.

220 million trees in one day !

Inida plants 220 million trees in a single day

Scottish forestry aims to re-forest the highlands and central belt as best they can to offset our carbon/ greenhouse emissions.

I believe this is the way to go for immediate mitigation. to India and Scotland.