Scientists Explain There Is No Climate Emergency--“World Climate Declaration”

submitted by QuantumLegion from theepochtimes.com

all 30 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Without the paywall:

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Farticle%2Fmeteorologists-scientists-explain-why-there-is-no-climate-emergency-5489139%3Fea_src%3Dfrontpage%26ea_med%3Dpremium-report-1

[–]QuantumLegion[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

sorry, the site said that was a free article

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's free with an email address.

They didn't charge money.

[–]BobOki 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nothing is free when they require something. They are selling your emails to spammers.

[–]Drewski 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Archive.today is another option that works without javascript: https://archive.ph/k6c4F

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do they have to gain from hair-brained glider stunts?

This is Hollywood movie style nonsense.

They removed the border guards in advance of the stunt. It was a false flag.

They're already being rationed food and water. They cut off the water shortly after the "attack".

It's absurd.

[–]wlh0242 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Still waiting for those Malibu Beach houses to go under....

[–]passionflounder 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If only it were actually about climate. It isn't and this is irrelevant. OurDemocracy® votes that there is a climate emergency and further demands a global solution. Global fascism to the rescue.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's very important to keep the outer party engaged in an existential crisis against the external enemy of climate so they don't unite with the proles and overthrow the inner party.

We have always been at war with the climate!

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Worthless article, because it doesn't provide easy to check references. So, even if it were true, whoever wrote it didn't show anything other than them being stupid.

The structure of the article is again like typical propaganda. Do people fall for this crap?

I thought it sounded as something that might be true, but there is no substance; there never is. There is only one truth, which is that Russia was the gas station of the world and at this rate, it won't even stay that. The truth is that fossil fuels are bad for many health reasons and humanity should just switch its energy systems to nuclear power (solar and wind are low risk, low reward "solutions").

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

nuclear power (solar and wind are low risk, low reward "solutions").

Nuclear power is high cost, centralised, extremely high risk, and medium reward.

It is not the solution.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Works fine in many countries.

[–]QuantumLegion[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That had plenty of money and a strong infrastructure when they were built. You missed this entire section:

Calvin Beisner, an expert in environmental ethics and the founder and national spokesperson for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, agrees that nature, not humans, causes most climate change. He said that the push to decrease CO2 by transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is trapping people extreme poverty worldwide.

"But the attempt to reduce that warming by forcing a rapid transition from coal, oil, and natural gas to wind and solar and other so-called renewable energy sources would slow, stop, or reverse the time out of poverty for people worldwide. And poverty is a far greater risk to human health and life than anything related to climate."

Mr. Beisner explained that when people have wealth, they can thrive in "any climate from the Arctic Circle to the Sahara Desert to the Brazilian rainforest. "But when people try to survive on a few dollars daily, they can't thrive in "even the best tropical paradise."

He said that economic development, owing partly to cheap fossil fuels, has allowed the populace to thrive in countries such as the United States as well as in Europe. But now, with the United Nations’ push to net-zero CO2 by 2050, developed countries are telling countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America "to forego the use of abundant, affordable, reliable energy from fossil fuels that lifted the West out of poverty and restrict themselves to the use of diffuse, expensive, unreliable, wind and solar, and thus, slowing their rise out of poverty.”

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Works fine in many countries.

Until it doesn't then they have a massive disaster to deal with. Hence the "extremely high risk" part.

[–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Fission is doable (although the technology is not as widespread as proponents probably think) and has less radioactive waste than coal, but the future is fusion (some startups have viable designs), or rather if humanity ever wants to become a society that meaningfully ventures into space as opposed to the monkeys wearing clothes most of you are now.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fission is doable (although the technology is not as widespread as proponents probably think) and has less radioactive waste than coal

Less waste in volume. But the "less radioactive waste than coal" is deliberate disinformation:

  • for coal, they count all radioactive emissions from the entire fuel cycle: mining the coal, burning it, and disposing of the left over ash;
  • for nuclear power, they ignore the radioactive emissions from mining, ignore the radioactive waste that must be stored afterwards, ignore the possibility of accidental releases and accidents, and count only a very optimistically low amount of routine emissions during normal operation.

Coal power produces about 2.4 million billion Bq of radioactivity per year. (About 8 billion tonnes of coal used per year, by about 300 Bq of radiactivity per kg.) How does that compare to nuclear?

The Chernobyl disaster released something like 8200 million billion Bq of radioactive material. So just one accident released 3400+ years worth of coal powered radioactivity.

And at least that amount more was still trapped inside the sarcophagus built around the reactor. Unfortunately the sarcophagus is starting to leak and scientists expect that over the next century or so large amounts of Strontium-90 will leak into the ground water where it will be used for agriculture and drinking water. Good times.

According to Japanese authorities, who have gone out of their way to avoid testing for radioactivity whenever they can get away with it, the Fukushima disaster released something like 6100 to 12420 million billion Bq of radioactive material -- and if you believe those figures, I have a bridge to sell you. You can see from the enormous range of values they don't have a clue what the true figure is, and don't want to know.

And again, the amount released is only a fraction of the amount still remaining in the destroyed reactors. That radioactivity will last much longer than the measures put in place to prevent it from leaking out.

The idea that coal produces more radioactivity per kilowatt than nuclear doesn't even pass the sniff test. One large nuclear reactor produces more radioactive material in its life time than the entire history of coal power going back to ancient times.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you are right, I apologize for not doing the research, but for such important questions there should be dashboards with metrics available backed by a research council or something like that. You wrote a wonderful response, but it shouldn't be needed. Also, anyone with corporate interests lying about such numbers should get a capital punishment.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

And by "Scientists" here we mean commercial fishermen, retired chemists, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists, mostly linked to the fossil fuel industry. - https://www.desmog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel/

Meanwhile the facts are: 99.9% of more than 88,000 climate change studies agree that humans have accelerated the phenomenon, largely due to carbon emissions.

NASA has a page about the scientific consensus.

[–]musky-the-nigger 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

How many of the 99.9% were paid for their contribution and would not be paid if their findings did not reach that conclusion?

It's important to look at the interpretation of those 88,000 climate scientists findings, and not just read their opinionated conclusions or headlines to that effect. When you actually look into it, the predictions used are almost always based on the most extreme possible model with no criticism from anyone in the scientific community. One of the reasons this will be, is so they don't get discredited, lose funding or indeed be forced out of their career.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

How many of the 99.9% were paid for their contribution and would not be paid if their findings did not reach that conclusion?

About none. They're academics it private research institutions. The former have s salary. The latter bid for grants before doing the research.

When you actually look into it, the predictions used are almost always based on the most extreme possible model with no criticism from anyone in the scientific community.

The predictions have been bang on the nose since the1980s. If that's from the most extreme models, then the models are too conservative, and only the most extreme area correct.

One of the reasons this will be, is so they don't get discredited, lose funding or indeed be forced out of their career.

That's not a thing for 99.9% of academic papers. The tenure system protects against that. But it's also utter bullshit. Overturning an accepted paradigm is how you get ahead in a career in science. Or win a nobel prize. There's no disincentive at all to publish is you have evidence against the commonly held belief. Quite the opposite.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

We know that is not honest because the climate model data is released publicly and we can see that observations are far fellow that which the average model predicts, and yet the majority of climate propaganda we see is based on the worst outcome, thus why we get lunatics running around thinking the world is about to end in 2 years.

Evidently, many scientists and researchers have lost their positions and some even had to go I to hiding because of their views, to think that publishing a critical paper on climate will lead to the land of milk and honey when so many governments and industries rely on taxing and profit from the idea that carbon is going to cause the next apocalypse is simply a fantasy. Those who do criticise green taxes or the climate mob get ostracized, publicly shamed, and proclaimed as a climate denier which can be very damaging to their reputation and.career.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

We know that is not honest PNG because the climate model data is released publicly and we can see that observations are far fellow that which the average model predicts ...

So you realize that you're looking only at a band of the tropical mid troposphere?

It's true that models historically performed poorly there. There appears to be a combination of reasons for this. https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data/

and yet the majority of climate propaganda we see is based on the worst outcome

When the greenhouse effect traps heat in the lower atmosphere, the upper atmosphere cools, because there is less heat reaching it from below. A cooler than expected mid atmosphere, is not a better outcome than a warmer one, with respect to the temperature at the surface, which is the part of the atmosphere that affects us.

Evidently, many scientists and researchers have lost their positions and some even had to go I to hiding because of their views,

What is this evidence?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You realise that of the 88,000 you quotes, about 1100 of the alleged signatories were already dead and only 1% were even scientists. The rest were lobbyists, engineers, pilots, etc.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Other way around. That's of the 1800 that signed the "World Climate Declaration" in the OP, but as at the time when it had 1200 signatories.

The 88,000 aren't people, they're individual papers. Most will have several authors, but they will all be scientists as defined by contributing to scientific papers.

What's your evidence that "many scientists and researchers have lost their positions and some even had to go I to hiding because of their views"?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Observation over the years. Articles get pulled, papers don't get published (for long), corporate media don't report on it because they would be subject to the same cancellation mob as those who lost their job. Searches are manipulated as are publications. The idea that 'all climate scientists agree' is so too a manipulation of the truth. Those included merely do not deny that around 0.0012% of the co2 in the atmosphere is manmade ergo ermagerd the world is ending WAAAAAAAAH. It's a ridiculous twist of the actuality of the situation. Just to humour you, I found one in seconds. https://www.infowars.com/posts/cancellations-start-for-john-clauser-after-nobel-physics-laureate-speaks-out-about-corruption-of-climate-science/

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Articles get pulled

For instance?

papers don't get published (for long)

For instance?

corporate media don't report on it because they would be subject to the same cancellation mob as those who lost their job.

For instance?

Searches are manipulated as are publications.

What searches, and manipulated how?

The idea that 'all climate scientists agree' is so too a manipulation of the truth.

What's the non-manipulated truth?

Those included merely do not deny that around 0.0012% of the co2 in the atmosphere is manmade ergo

This is a manipulation of the truth.

The increase in CO2 since the pre-industrial era of 280ppm to current levels of 416ppm is due to human activity.

That's a 49% increase.

ergo ermagerd the world is ending WAAAAAAAAH.

Please link me to an example of someone saying this.

Just to humour you, I found one in seconds.

Inforwars?

What makes you think that wasn't made up by Alex Jones to support his conspiracy theories in an effort to sell creepy food to the psychologically insecure?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

For instance?

Interestingly, when most articles or papers get pulled, they aren't available any more. Let's not be so naive. But here's one that caved to peer pressure:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/26/scientific-journal-retracts-article-that-claimed-no-evidence-of-climate-crisis

For instance?

Many lose their lob for speaking out. Most you would know nothing about because they aren't on the big screen, the rest disappear into pulled articles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/02/french-weatherman-fired-for-promoting-book-sceptical-of-climate-change

What searches, and manipulated how?

So search results are not manipulated by algorithms now, is that what you're suggesting? Really? Now I know your talking rubbish.

Please link me to an example of someone saying this.

Every single retarded protest in London. Ermagerd, 12 years to extinction. Ermagerd, 3 years to extinction. Waaah. Think of the children waaah. It's always the 'end of everything '

https://www.mylondon.news/news/tv/itv-good-morning-britain-viewers-22198751

Inforwars?

What makes you think that mainstream news is any more trustworthy when they link to 'unnamed sources'. In this case, they were referring to external reports.

https://www.newsweek.com/nobel-prize-winner-who-doesnt-believe-climate-crisis-has-speech-canceled-1815020#:~:text=John%20Clauser%20was%20to%20present,Coalition%20said%20in%20a%20statement.

The scientific community is now coming forward to clarify that there is no climate emergency. Just accept it.