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

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: 1point92AU

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.

That's precisely why "they" shelved the technologies. And specifically what you are referring to is the encumberance of the modern nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) electric vehicle battery.

It was bought by Big Oil from inventor Dr. Masahiko O#ani and intentionally shelved to prevent the proliferation of the EV market. That's the electric vehicle market.

Tesla is currently under attack from the single biggest stock manipulation scheme in history and even the SEC is in on it.

My point is this. You and I and many others who are "woke" understand what is happening BUT...there is nothing...and I mean nothing we can do about it.

Big Oil owns the planet. They have so much money and power it is literally nearly impossible for us to grasp just how powerful they are. Unless oil is running out anytime soon (which it 100% is not) then Big Oil is going to be here for a very, very long time.

originally posted by: contextual
The header needs changing its science deniers not scientists.
English language is a real problem for many here.
Promoting fake news, wonder why?

Only a fool would call the actual scientist deniers while not being able to prove one UN sanctioned climate model was accurate. Not even one to my knowledge. That is where we are, no models that work and no allowing of the scientist who disagree to speak.

Meanwhile even the UN's "experts" at the IPCC says it was about moving the wealth on Earth around and not about catastrophic climate failure. I would guess someone is gonna get their cut too before the dust settles from this crime.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: underwerks


The efforts of all the renewable energy people in the world has not reduced the use of oil at all. The oil companies have absolutely no fear at all and no reason to fund anti-science.

The government has a lot of reasons to fund anti-science. New sources of taxation and control of population are just two of them.

Now if I was an oil company and I thought I could make money in renewable energy, why would I just not sell both oil and renewables?

Why Big oil or an obnoxiously burdensome to the economy taxation of the populace. The Gov needs us needing them and won't let the safe ideas proliferate such as the Inherently Safe Nuclear Reactor designs. Thorium reactors for one look good to my observation. But creating Plutonium at weapons grade is the only real reason anyone builds them .

Fukishima is on a fault line at the Sea in a highly active geological time. Why would anybody justify that being built there not see that? Stupid is as stupid does but these people had some serious brain trust to mess up this bad. Is that on purpose
to help the big oil and Cabal that wants that power over all they can see greatly, and soon?

Dude worked for Shell and he likes his stocks to go up ! Climate change is natural , yet let’s try not to have anymore children!

originally posted by: Grimpachi


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.

Could you actually give a reliable source for your claim? I know you AGW alarmists like to make false claims without any corroboration, but unless you post proof all you are doing is making a claim without any corroboration.

originally posted by: SulfurMercurySalt
Dude worked for Shell and he likes his stocks to go up ! Climate change is natural , yet let’s try not to have anymore children!

First of all, even if it was true that he "worked" for an oil company it doesn't equals to him lying...
What about the fact that Al Gore has stocks on oil,, or other "rich Liberals" whom claim to only want 100% to use renewable energy to make their products but their plants are located in countries that pollute more than the U.S?...

Al Gore’s tangled web of un-green corporate investments

Second of all, how about you post proof that disputes the statements made by these scientists?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

never mind - I looked it up myself. The problem was not the heat but the lack of ability to adapt. How many lives would have been saved if they had set up cooling centres and had widespread air conditioning. Image if hotels had opened their doors to old people and children.

Anyway while we on the topic. Can anyone tell me what the optimum temperature for the earth is?

We have been warmer like during the Medieval Warming period, which was considered a time of enlightment and we have been colder, the little Ice Age, which was a hardship.

Right now, global temperature has raised by 0.8 degrees and people are panicking in the streets. The earth kinda likes it. It has greened by 14 %

www.nasa.gov...


So someone please tell me....what is the optimum global temperature

So the fact that temperatures have started to get so hot people died in their homes is not a problem, we are just not prepared for it? Wow. With that kind of sensible thinking what could go wrong...ok everyone, we need to burn more fuel to provide energy to help us cool off then. Oh wait, that makes things worse. No it's fine, we just burn even more fuel then to make that cooler. Genius idea.......

a reply to: queenofswords

I’m not even reading through this thread because there’s no point, but let me just point out one thing from the quote in the OP:

“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”

Just because you’re a scientist doesn’t mean you know the first thing about this field. Many of these “scientists” are doctors or engineers or who knows what and haven’t had an ecology class or review since Bio 101.

THIS DOESNT COUNT.

Anyone who says palm oil plantations, or industries that involve deforestation, are part of climate mitigation doesn’t have the first freaking idea what they’re talking about whatsoever.

And the loss of birds and bats to turbine is valid however there is technology for turbines that reduce these risks which are being used more and more. And that’s NOTHING compared to the thousands of species going extinct due to climate change RIGHT NOW.

DONT TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE NOT INFORMED ABOUT.

are you an expert? Probably NOPE.

Are these “scientists” experts in ecology or conservation or biology or geology or literally anything relevant to this topic? NOPE. Unless you consider a dentist or a dude studying crystals or whatever the heck else to be an expert. Which DOESNT MATTER. They don’t have standing to comment on any of these issues and neither do you truthfully because ...

... guess what, you’re uninformed. I can’t call you names but I can say anyone spouting this nonsense has no command of complex ecological concepts just like you WOULDNT and SHOULDNT trust me to know the first thing about fixing your car or repairing your sink or giving you an eye exam.

Let go of your ego for one second and realize you all don’t and can’t know everything there is to know. If you’re genuinely upset or curious then PLEASE work in the field studying these things and get firsthand experience yourself.

I’m sick of this website and to be honest I read it because scrolling through pages and pages of repetitive posts is like counting sheep for me. Isn’t that ironic? 100% serious. But had to say something here.

I dont know if my response is relative to this post and the point being made,m so if what im about to say is random and way off topic, i apologize beforehand. But this is my take on the matter......

When i was little, my dads side of the family, w/whom i resided until 5th grade, would talk about there being a drought and we conserved water in our household. My bath water was a 30 or 40 gallon tupperware type thing filled 2/3 until 2nd or 3rd grade and they were very big on not wasting it while brushing my teeth etc etc.

When i got older, i rarely hear ppl mentioning a drought, when they do, its usually for the purpose of debate not as a precursor promoting a more conservative lifestyle. I remember a lady was furious about a new water law that restricted when she could water her grass. Bcuz she pays for her water, she felt she should be able to use it whenever and however much she wanted to so she defended this notion by turning her hose on and keeping it on...... indefinately, forever if thats what it took.

The way i see it, even if global warming and the human footprint isnt as damaging as its made out to be, why wouldnt we want to implement more earth friendly solutions in society? Even if todays air quality isnt as poor as the news said it is, whats wrong with walking to the store for a loaf of bread instead of driving? I dont mind watering my grass on Tuesdays and Thursdays or converting to biodoesal- these are good things. Theres nothing wrong with caring about the Earth and environment and making a fuss about her.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
...
so do you know what the earth's optimum temperature is?

Well it;s your lucky day !
Can help you with that request.

Raise from your chair, and head towards the closest door, that leads to a place called 'outside'.
Proceed to open the door, and go outside.
Don't just wait there on the porch, no: go-on now, go all the way out into the outside.
Walk around a bit.

The air that you feel brushing by your face.
The temperature that it is, is the ideal temperature, for where you are, and for that particular moment.

Voilà !

Seriously? Ok, I'm not sure if you're a bad comedian or just unable to understand the question. Surely you know that the optimum temperature for the earth is potentially very different to what you see and feel when you go outside now, don't you? Surely..

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: queenofswords

I’m not even reading through this thread because there’s no point, but let me just point out one thing from the quote in the OP:

“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”

Just because you’re a scientist doesn’t mean you know the first thing about this field. Many of these “scientists” are doctors or engineers or who knows what and haven’t had an ecology class or review since Bio 101.

THIS DOESNT COUNT.

Anyone who says palm oil plantations, or industries that involve deforestation, are part of climate mitigation doesn’t have the first freaking idea what they’re talking about whatsoever.

And the loss of birds and bats to turbine is valid however there is technology for turbines that reduce these risks which are being used more and more. And that’s NOTHING compared to the thousands of species going extinct due to climate change RIGHT NOW.

DONT TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU ARE NOT INFORMED ABOUT.

are you an expert? Probably NOPE.

Are these “scientists” experts in ecology or conservation or biology or geology or literally anything relevant to this topic? NOPE. Unless you consider a dentist or a dude studying crystals or whatever the heck else to be an expert. Which DOESNT MATTER. They don’t have standing to comment on any of these issues and neither do you truthfully because ...

... guess what, you’re uninformed. I can’t call you names but I can say anyone spouting this nonsense has no command of complex ecological concepts just like you WOULDNT and SHOULDNT trust me to know the first thing about fixing your car or repairing your sink or giving you an eye exam.

Let go of your ego for one second and realize you all don’t and can’t know everything there is to know. If you’re genuinely upset or curious then PLEASE work in the field studying these things and get firsthand experience yourself.

I’m sick of this website and to be honest I read it because scrolling through pages and pages of repetitive posts is like counting sheep for me. Isn’t that ironic? 100% serious. But had to say something here.

I think the reason for debate within the climate change issue is that there are actual climate scientists that disagree to certain extents with each other because it is such a complex science and some may think they are getting it right, while others may get is wrong and fail to see their errors. Again, this is an extremely complex issue and we are all just trying to make sense of the information that is currently out there, while others (like elders in the Arctic) tell us that through their entire lifetime they have never experienced certain climate events and that they have no verbal stories passed down to explain why these changes are happening now or that they are cyclical.

All in all, 97 percent climate scientists agree that the Earth's temperature is rising and that is causing problems.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

climate.nasa.gov...

If some ATS members want to refute these findings they certainly have the right to question certain aspects of the studies as we all know that scientists' methodology may be biased to achieve a certain result. If they do want to refute the findings I would hope their scientific sources' methodology are scrutinized. But, yes, we are not climate scientists but when you read that within the climate science field that there is controversy, then why would you think some of us non-scientists would not have the ability to understand the workings of a scientific research paper?

originally posted by: bluesilver

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
...
so do you know what the earth's optimum temperature is?

Well it;s your lucky day !
Can help you with that request.

Raise from your chair, and head towards the closest door, that leads to a place called 'outside'.
Proceed to open the door, and go outside.
Don't just wait there on the porch, no: go-on now, go all the way out into the outside.
Walk around a bit.

The air that you feel brushing by your face.
The temperature that it is, is the ideal temperature, for where you are, and for that particular moment.

Voilà !

Seriously? Ok, I'm not sure if you're a bad comedian or just unable to understand the question. Surely you know that the optimum temperature for the earth is potentially very different to what you see and feel when you go outside now, don't you? Surely..

Oh drat !
Somebody called me on my claim.
Don't have a clue as to what the optimum temp of the Earth is. You ?

Oh: and please don't call me Shirley.

Makes me confused, thinking you're talking to my little brother Shirley.

a reply to: Maytrixfree

The way i see it, even if global warming and the human footprint isnt as damaging as its made out to be, why wouldnt we want to implement more earth friendly solutions in society? Even if todays air quality isnt as poor as the news said it is, whats wrong with walking to the store for a loaf of bread instead of driving? I dont mind watering my grass on Tuesdays and Thursdays or converting to biodoesal- these are good things. Theres nothing wrong with caring about the Earth and environment and making a fuss about her.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with your statement above.

Everybody wants clean air, water, and environment. We all want conservation practices to be practiced. Most of us already recycle, get involved with our local communities on environmental issues, and most people don't complain when they have to water their lawn on Tues. and Thurs. rather than everyday. Some whiners do, but they are the exception.

That is not the issue. The issue is the extremist push by agenda-makers that hyperbolize and fear-monger and demand Giant Global Slush Funds funded by your tax dollars, or push to upend the entire economy to implement ridiculous and destructive projects that affect the economic well-being of the average person, when all scientists and all studies do NOT indicate such emergency undertakings.

I think that is where the fanatics misunderstand people that criticize the Cult of Climatology. It is not all or nothing.....but, they are fanatics and that plate is constantly being passed around the "congregation" for the next hyperbolic project. Everybody gets paid for something and from someone or group of someones.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: InTheLight

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?

Which ones?

Are you in the mood for a long read?

en.wikipedia.org...

More than 100 authors from 36 countries assessed the latest scientific literature related to the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate for the report, referencing about 7,000 scientific publications.

www.ipcc.ch...

www.ipcc.ch...

So 100 authors decided for the entire scientific community.
That's less than the 500 who have a different opinion.
Not much of a consensus.

Trust me on this - we're not going to be extinct in 12 years. Really.
Here's the back story..

First global cooling - we're all going to freeze to death.
Erm no, global warming, we're all going to be boiled and die.
Erm, sh*t, we don't really know.
Hey, climate change!
We're all going to die soon unless you pay us some money, lots of money and do as we say.

That about sums it up.

Reality - if mother earth decides we're f*****, then we're f****** and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.
The people pulling your strings already know this, but you have some dollars they want.

That would be 100 authors assessing 7,000 scientific papers. How did you miss that?

How many papers did the 500 who disagree assess?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: contextual
The header needs changing its science deniers not scientists.
English language is a real problem for many here.
Promoting fake news, wonder why?

Only a fool would call the actual scientist deniers ....

If you check out the names, you will find that only a few are actually scientists and (if memory serves) none of them are meteorologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, etc. I think it's a few engineers.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: contextual
The header needs changing its science deniers not scientists.
English language is a real problem for many here.
Promoting fake news, wonder why?

Only a fool would call the actual scientist deniers ....

If you check out the names, you will find that only a few are actually scientists and (if memory serves) none of them are meteorologists, climatologists, paleoclimatologists, etc. I think it's a few engineers.

So were also most of the scientists from the 97% agreeing with AGW

a reply to: Byrd

You know.....I don't know if you realize this but the names of the 500 people will not be released until October 18 2019 in OSLO

www.thegwpf.com...

Would you happen to have some kind of biased agenda for pretending the know the names and then smearing their reputation?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So were also most of the scientists from the 97% agreeing with AGW

Not true. Please don't post disinfo.



Why are we even discussing the scientific status of a letter whose signatories have not been revealed?

originally posted by: Gothmog

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

True Spartans
And I wager none are so-called "Climate Scientists" , but are true science members.

And the difference is? By your esteemed estimation?

Just what is a 'true science member'?

a reply to: contextual

Your picture says 'Power to the people'. There are also songs that encourage people to 'Fight the power' (Jamiroquai, for example).

Both of these thoughts sound good on the surface, don't they? What could be better than giving power to people (as in true democracy), or fighting this corrupt power that's killing the planet, nature, people, etc.?

However, both of these take the focus off the reality, which is.. people ALREADY have the power.

Yes, I said it.

People already have more power than all this planet's corporations and governments combined.

One problem is that people have been put to sleep, so they have forgotten this fact. The other problem is, they've been actively encouraged to forget this and think about other things altogether. They don't know they have the power.

Even bigger problem is that people have been duped to give this power away in practical reality and for all intents and purposes. No one can take your rights away, but a government can dupe you into forfeiting access to your rights, or ability to use them.

One of the most dangerous human rights is 'the unlimited right to contracting' - that's right, we have an unlimited right to make contracts. Of course we can make unethical contracts and even illegal ones, but basically, we have the right to make any sort of contract.

This means, goverments can dupe us into making contracts that basically freeze our ability to use our rights - if we consent to not using a certain right, we can't use that right anymore (at least lawfully).

We have all done this en masse, by signing all kinds of applications (to apply = to beg), forms, registrations (regis = king, so anything you 'register', means in legalese that you transfer the ownership of that thing to the king, which can be a corporation or government in modern times - makes for a chilling thought when you consider that people register their kids for all kinds of things, doesn't it?).

We can't even own a car, really. We don't get the allodial title, we get some kind of distorted version of a title, and that's why our car can be so easily impounded and almost anything we think we own, can be easily confiscated (to confiscate = to take unlawfully, just by the way..)

We live in a really crazy world, where people are so deeply asleep, they don't even realize they HAVE the power, but they have consented to not be able to USE it, and then they're duped into saying things like 'power to the people' - which only implies that people don't YET have the power, so people feel powerless, so in effect, they don't have the power (even though they really do).

Interesting situation, isn't it..?