This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

No Climate Emergency

This doesn't seem to appear in the Daily Mail or the BBC, I wonder why:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

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 policies 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.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with
natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no
surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are
far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the
fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global
plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. 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.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly
oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches
emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf


At last some people talking sense. After the relatively rapid rise of around 1°C between 1975 and 2000 in the Northern Hemisphere the temperatures have been relatively flat.

f95f77dc1ad4c0ab15046a656ee22cae-huge-hadcrut.jpg

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/figures/Figure11.png


We certainly need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet but focusing on CO2 is not the way to do it. Let's start with real pollutants that are directly harmful.


Best regards


Roger
Parents

  • Simon Barker:

    Here's a few possibilities I have just come up with off the top of my head...



    • Shipping is a lot more efficient than air, but burns dirty oil.  Push through a programme of converting ships to solar and wind.  That will be costly, and the ships will be slower.  So less stuff imported from overseas.  Insist that goods are designed to last longer, and be repairable (just like the olden days).  Forget buying that latest iPhone.



    I will just concentrate on the 'possibility' where my expertise lies.

    Ships are already moving towards less polluting options. The dirty oil burning ships of my younger days (1960s to 1980s) are a thing of the past, probably quite literally as the expected life-time of a ship is around 25 years. Ship-owners have been experimenting with wind and solar power for the last couple of decades, not so much because of environmental concerns but because of the continuing rise in cost of fuels. There have also been ships designed to go slower and so use less fuel, but here we do come up against the consumer demand requirements so you are quite correct regarding the impact it will have on consumers.

    The International Maritime Organization has set a target of reducing emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050. This might not sound too much of a challenge, but remember the 25 year life of the ships. The ships that are being designed now will still be in service in 2050 and are part of that target.

    Solar does not provide enough power to significantly affect the ship propulsion. Wind is practical (though intermittent), after all we had a worldwide fleet of wind-powered ships only 150 years ago with only a smattering of coal powered ones (the first steam-ships capable of world-wide trade dated from the 1860s, and they still had sails and masts as a back-up). Probably the biggest change in shipping will be hybrid ships first (just as hybrid cars were the big thing prior to full electric cars) and there are already a number of these around.

    One of the biggest drivers in global shipping is the globalisation of manufacturing. As you mention the iPhone I will use its example. They are all now manufactured in China and shipped to the consumers. The shipping requirements would be drastically reduced if they were manufactured/assembled local to the individual markets, but this would cost more.

    As you can see from this, your suggestions are sensible and already being thought about, which bodes well for your other suggestions.

    Alasdair

     

Reply

  • Simon Barker:

    Here's a few possibilities I have just come up with off the top of my head...



    • Shipping is a lot more efficient than air, but burns dirty oil.  Push through a programme of converting ships to solar and wind.  That will be costly, and the ships will be slower.  So less stuff imported from overseas.  Insist that goods are designed to last longer, and be repairable (just like the olden days).  Forget buying that latest iPhone.



    I will just concentrate on the 'possibility' where my expertise lies.

    Ships are already moving towards less polluting options. The dirty oil burning ships of my younger days (1960s to 1980s) are a thing of the past, probably quite literally as the expected life-time of a ship is around 25 years. Ship-owners have been experimenting with wind and solar power for the last couple of decades, not so much because of environmental concerns but because of the continuing rise in cost of fuels. There have also been ships designed to go slower and so use less fuel, but here we do come up against the consumer demand requirements so you are quite correct regarding the impact it will have on consumers.

    The International Maritime Organization has set a target of reducing emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050. This might not sound too much of a challenge, but remember the 25 year life of the ships. The ships that are being designed now will still be in service in 2050 and are part of that target.

    Solar does not provide enough power to significantly affect the ship propulsion. Wind is practical (though intermittent), after all we had a worldwide fleet of wind-powered ships only 150 years ago with only a smattering of coal powered ones (the first steam-ships capable of world-wide trade dated from the 1860s, and they still had sails and masts as a back-up). Probably the biggest change in shipping will be hybrid ships first (just as hybrid cars were the big thing prior to full electric cars) and there are already a number of these around.

    One of the biggest drivers in global shipping is the globalisation of manufacturing. As you mention the iPhone I will use its example. They are all now manufactured in China and shipped to the consumers. The shipping requirements would be drastically reduced if they were manufactured/assembled local to the individual markets, but this would cost more.

    As you can see from this, your suggestions are sensible and already being thought about, which bodes well for your other suggestions.

    Alasdair

     

Children
No Data