Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list.
Let us hope that President Trump acts quickly on Dr. Lindzen’s request.
If anyone you know claims the climate debate is over, show them a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s petition.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Having seen this post, today I re-read Dr. Lindzen’s 1990 article “Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming”. It was very insightful in its own time and remains relevant, as the GCM’s still suffer essentially the same limitations and conceptual defects today as in 1990. To me, this seems like a must-read piece of background for any WUWT reader. A pdf is freely available on the page given here. The article is in the list and there is a button to download the pdf. http://journals.ametsoc.org/toc/bams/71/3
My favorite quote from this article is on page 295 (of the journal), lower right, “Models commonly have difficulty reproducing well-observed major features of the current climate … without what is euphemistically referred to as ‘tuning.’ “
US withdrawal from the Paris agreement would effectively scuttle it which is easily done since it was dead in the water from the outset because it was purely voluntary. China, India, Russia, and Brazil, which have been going through the motions on emissions reductions for years now, will either pull out also or simply scale back their efforts to an even lower point than they’re at now; and since they,along with the US, contribute 54% of all global emissions, the Paris deal will be laid to rest once and for all. In fact, maybe we should be reserving space for it alongside Kyoto and Copenhagen.
As an actual enforced agreement Paris is meaningless, the larger purpose is maintaining the climate authority system. Another step along the road with its heart set on global carbon controls beyond democracy. Similar in design to the global Keynesian monetary authority and directive.
That’s the dream of central planners and their supporters everywhere.
Wouldn’t it be a fine thing if DJT invites all signatories to the White House for a meeting? I can see the Alarmists heads exploding by the score…what a gore…
But I thought Al Gore said the “Science is settled ” . Gore couldn’t carry the jock strap of any of the 300 signatory of the letter yet $$Trillions get directed to an unscientific fraud .
This will be the easiest $$Trillion dollars Trump ever saved .
300? That sounds like a ‘consensus’ to me!
It hasn’t taken the Guardian long to knock up a ‘rebuttal’. Naturally the 300 are dismissed out of hand by John Abraham’s hit piece.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate
Abraham’s rebuttal makes perfect sense to me. A lot of the signatories don’t have climate science qualifications and quite a few seem to have worked for or have links with the fossil fuel industry.
[if you’ll check, you’ll also see that Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and many others don’t have climate science degrees…they are no more qualified to model the future than the people who are criticizing the follow of their cottage industry -mod]
Abraham is a mechanical engineer with a minor in zealotry, what makes him qualified to make a rebuttal?
One doesn’t need to be a climate scientist to google the names of these scientists to see if their qualifications are relevant to climate science or more importantly to see if they have connections to the fossil fuel industry.
..FACTS Dermot, FACTS,.,….Back up your accusations with FACTS …AKA…Evidence ! I am sick and tired of you liberal nut bags accusing real scientists of being in the pay of “the Fossil Fuel Industry” !!…Look in the mirror….
Facts, Butch? Dermot gave you facts, an article that talks about the lack of scientific qualifications of the signatories, as well as their lack of relevant published research.
To the moderator, your comment about climate science degrees ignores the point that the author made about relevant scientific research. Mann, Hansen and Schmidt have published a great deal of research in atmospheric sciences. The signatories mentioned in the article? Almost none.
And the article was right, wasn’t it?
The 300 don’t include people who have studied, researched or published on climate or anything related to it.
The usual cartel inflation comment. Climate science is closer to a humanities field then many other more serious science fields. Even with that given what is published outside the consensus peer review cartel? It’s largely a closed shop.
The rest of science sits in judgement of political hack climate science not the other way around.
Read the list again Griff. For example,does not Nils Morner and sea levels ring a bell,
Christy, Curry, Lomberg, Tol, Ridley, Svensmark, Shaviv and others I’d like to see on the list are missing.
And only some of those are faintly credible as scientists….
That remark was an insult Griff,and you should apologise to those scientists.
[snip]
It would be enormously helpful if there weren’t many names on the list which are, er, just names with no quals or anything else appended. Given that the list maker must have been aware that this list would be scrutinised with an electron scope by hyper-avid detractors how could they have been so mind-bogglingly stupid as to do this?? Lordy give a boy a man’s job! Next time I insist on being a proof reader.
Despite al the scientific evidence that worries over CO2 are tax raising bunk, there is an even greater probably realistic truth. Mankind will not be merely oxidising Carbon,i.e, burning fossil fuels, as a realistic main source for his power and heat needs to the same degree in 2101 as it did in 2001. The same as energy needs were not supplied by cetacean blubber in 1901, as in1801. We will be some fifty or more years into the controlled Fusion era, the true Solar Energy. Propaganda aside, the diffuse power offered by PV or thermal Sun powered energy harvesting, will never be truly economic,
Mankind will have advanced to better cleaner and essentially inexhaustible source by half a century. The resistance to Fission based energy, is largely due to the large cache of highly radio-toxic materials stored there, while Fusion has little or none such large quantities of toxins.. Man or Nature can destroy a controlled Fusion power plant to little dileterious effect; and the same cannot be true for Fission without massive efforts, which may be to no avail.