Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 101 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 7918 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

No Climate Emergency

Roger B
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
  • 0
    The trouble is, we don't really have "facts"; we have measurements.  All measurements have a tolerance, and some may have errors (outside the tolerance).  And we only have a finite number of measurements - we don't know the temperature of every point in the World all the time.


    And there are so many complex feedback loops that we can only estimate.  Warmer seas should mean more evaporation, and so more clouds.  Clouds may warm or cool the Earth, depending on where they are, what altitude and what sorts of clouds.


    The biggest worry is the positive feedback loops.  More hot weather means more forest fires, which means more soot in the air.  Soot settling on ice makes it darker, so it melts faster in the sun.  When the ice melts, that leaves land, which warms quicker than white ice.  Warming land can emit CO2 or methane, which are greenhouse gases, which warms things up even more.  But how big is this effect?  We can only estimate it.


    In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.
Reply
  • 0
    The trouble is, we don't really have "facts"; we have measurements.  All measurements have a tolerance, and some may have errors (outside the tolerance).  And we only have a finite number of measurements - we don't know the temperature of every point in the World all the time.


    And there are so many complex feedback loops that we can only estimate.  Warmer seas should mean more evaporation, and so more clouds.  Clouds may warm or cool the Earth, depending on where they are, what altitude and what sorts of clouds.


    The biggest worry is the positive feedback loops.  More hot weather means more forest fires, which means more soot in the air.  Soot settling on ice makes it darker, so it melts faster in the sun.  When the ice melts, that leaves land, which warms quicker than white ice.  Warming land can emit CO2 or methane, which are greenhouse gases, which warms things up even more.  But how big is this effect?  We can only estimate it.


    In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines