By P Gosselin
1609 signatories recently signed a declaration that states there is no climate crisis, thus casting doubt over man’s alleged role in climate change and extreme weather.
Their doubt is based on data showing that natural factors are very much at play, the warming is slower than predicted, the models are unreliable, that CO2 has great benefits and weather disasters have not increased. The media hysteria and weather hype are not supported by data.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
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 significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world 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. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also 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. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable 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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
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. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are.”
Growing skepticism
Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr John F. Clauser also signed the manifesto.
The message is clear: there is no climate crisis. The number of critical scientists who no longer submit to the dogma of the alleged man-made climate catastrophe is growing.
Physics NL Ivar Giaever signed it too:
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
I was going to say something snarky about 93% (91 out of 94), but then I see a link down bottom to go laugh at….
Does someone have a copy of that original 93% questionnaire? I believe it was so bad, only 94 responded to a mailing of what, 3 200?
Covered here at WUWT way back in 2013, including a possible explanation of the discrepancy between having a total of 79 “specialists” but only 77 answered question 2.
URL 1 : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/
Actually the survey was sent to “10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions”, and the 97% number came from a carefully selected 79 out of 3146 actual responders.
From the actual Doran & Zimmerman (2009) paper :
Note that an earlier WUWT article, in 2012, has links to several other critiques of D&Z.
URL 2 : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
Thanks, now I know two more things:
1609 is 3% of 53,633.
Somewhere the purported 52,000 CAGW climate experts are still working hard to give advice to Joe Biden, the Dems, and the UN.
“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration
And in a sane world such an enterprise would be completely unnecessary. Ludicrous even.
Dr John Clauser was recently cancelled by the IMF and that fact speaks volumes. Because the IMF does not want to hear anything that counters its own beliefs…
“NET ZERO BY 2050”
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2021/09/infographic-series-net-zero-2050-IEA-report
As far as international organisations, from the UN down, are concerned, the science is settled.
Well, it would be extremely embarrassing if it weren’t, wouldn’t it?
Embarrassing yes, but they’ve got out of tight corners before. Nobody is irreplaceable and blame is easily apportioned – just ask the climate attribution clique.
The direction of travel has been set and nothing and nobody will be allowed to prevent it.
Until the people rise up when their freedoms become obviously curtailed if not outright denied.
Freedom? What freedom? Just try not to pay your Direct Taxes and find out how long you stay ‘free’. Form 1040 tells you exactly what you are. A number and numbers have no rights.
If you are a Biden, you can ignore your taxes for years with no consequences.
The so called “plea deal” let Hunter just pay his back taxes, and promise to pay his taxes in the future.
How many of us, if we just decided we didn’t feel like paying over $100K in taxes, twice, would be allowed to get away with paying back taxes and an apology.
“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific”
Little chance of this happening! Your last sentence makes it clear. The opposite is increasingly true as climate policy determines the findings of climate science – a circular theological orthodoxy. This statement, significant and truthful as it is, will have no effect once the media arm of the (Western/US) church has finished with it – to paraphrase Goebbels ‘think of mass media as a giant organ on which only the regime can play’.
Nonetheless, people like Judith Curry, Peter Ridd, Patrick Moore and Anthony Watts – along with many other notable discordant heretics – deserve respect and support for their steadfast adherence to the value of evidence-based science. A theory that is refuted by evidence becomes a theology and data is transformed to defend the citadel of settled belief.
They are all very worthy people. And what they have to say should be heard. But it isn’t, outside websites of a sceptical bent.
The media is blasting new fears, alarms and disasters on a daily basis – and you won’t see or hear a dissenting voice or any questioning. What you get is narrative affirmation reportage.
Yes, if a person was prone to believe in human-caused climate change, they would have plenty of support for their position in the Media. It’s a constant drumbeat on the newsfeeds nowadays.
On a positive note, I’ve seen several articles in my MSN feed on Judith Curry’s interview with John Stossel where she takes down the “manufactured consensus”. So there appear to be a few cracks in the alarmist wall – “that’s how the light gets in” (Leonard Cohen).
As a meteorologist, I do my best in my circle of friends/relatives to spread the news that this is a bunch of horse-hockey. Many are with me, some are naive and others are just plainly scientifically inept.
Just keep hammering the truth that there has been no increases in extreme weather events nor in damage costs adjusted for population, GDP and infrastructure in harms’ way.
Road map to hell. They say “low carbon hydrogen” will play a major role in net zero. LOL.
I’m satisfied with high hydrogen carbon already.
Using perfectly good electricity to make hydrogen…to store…. so you can make electricity again….has thermodynamics, storage, safety and scheduling issues that are going to prove much more difficult than anticipated by everyone’s recollection of electrolysis in science class.
… but doing all that is how you get the job creation benefits.
“It’s own beliefs” should be replaced with “agreed-on, we-own-the-science dogma”
“Nobel Laureate” is no longer a ringing endorsement.
Collateral damage from Al Gore!
And the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama before he took office and could even do anything.
It was for him sounding good to the socialists and Marxists.
If only the media would report this. They’ve got people I know, who I would normally trust to be sceptical, completely convinced that the world is ending. They blindly accept the premise that southern europe is going to be a barren, heat-blasted wasteland within the next X years.
Unfortunately, the alarmist propaganda promulgated by the western media is so prevalent that many people have been completely brainwashed. Trying to reach brainwashed people is almost impossible. It’s the equivalent of attempting to deprogram members of religious cults who think that the world is going to end.
The Christian world has largely junked its faith and tried to make it fit in with the now and right on – ask any gay or transgender vicar. That vacuum has been filled by Gaia or an ideal of the natural world. The Pope, The Archbish of Canterbury etc are all on board with the new god[dess].
And us? We’re the new devil.
I think it’s 10yrs. At least that’s what they said 30yrs ago. 😉
It seems that all of Europe could become a “barren, heat-blasted wasteland” if the US/NATO manages to ignite WWIII by attacking Russia. They have already invested billions of U$ and hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians to achieving this objective. I notice that nobody seems to worry about all the co2 emissions involved although the Nordstream bombing did get a passing mention or two. That seems to get a free pass – like bird slicing windmills.
I see, out of the tens of millions of scientists you (maybe) got 1,600 to sign this declaration. Of the hundreds of Nobel Laureates, you managed 1.
Very impressive. That’ll make those evil greens/Marxists sit up and take notice. The new dawn of oil and coal can’t be far behind.
Hmmm. 77 scientists in the Doran and Zimmerman paper are 97% of scientists. So 1,600 must be 2,015% of scientists. That’s impressive!
They are 97% reliable
Two. Many other Nobelists and world class scientists are also CACA skeptics. A majority in fact, but science isn’t done by voting.
Fun fact: this guy is signatory prominent Chilean engineer Douglas Pollock’s ancestor:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_George_Pollock,_1st_Baronet
Doug’s British granddad and Chilean dad wed Chilean women.
CACA !!!
PERFECT acronym for a shit theory!
Most scientists are not eligible to sign this declaration. If you look at the form which is required to sign the declaration, you have to be a published scientist. This excludes the vast majority of scientists.
The list of signatories is headed “Scientists and Professionals”. I am an Engineer not a Scientist but have been accepted as a signatory (62). Looking at the list of signatories there are a considerable number of Engineers and it does raise the question ‘What do these Engineers know’? The answer, I believe, is that an Engineers’ income is dependent on designing and building things that work, unlike the Climate Scientist who only has to publish papers that conform to the agenda.
My experience is in the design and construction of NDIR gas detectors. Give me a heat source and a Thermopile and I can ‘see’ Carbon Dioxide much more clearly than Greta can. I can ‘see’ how much power it absorbs and the near logarithmic relationship between absorption and concentration. I can also ‘see’ how water vapor conceals most of the absorption of CO2. (https://cw50b.wordpress.com/cagw)
I don’t think I would want to work in a hazardous environment with only a Greta designed gas sensor to keep me safe.
Greta herself is a sensor. She can see CO2.
“near logarithmic relationship”
Yes, but have you seen this graph.
It appears to show that CO2 absorption basically levels off at around 280ppm
I had a copy of the paper it was from, lost it, and can’t access it anymore.
bnice2000, without knowing the conditions that led to your graph, it is difficult to comment. I can only offer this graph, which is basically derived from HITRAN via the NASA PSG which allows for consideration of other atmospheric constituents as well as lapse rate and water vapor at 80% RH. The logarithmic approximation is reasonable from about 300 to 800 ppmv but not over the whole range. The difference appears to require a ‘correction factor’ that may be a hyperbolic function of the concentration. This is something I am working on.
iirc, the data was based on actual measurements..
There aren’t tens of millions of climate scientists. Calling one a “scientist” is like calling one a driver … a driver of what? Tractors, automobiles, 18 wheelers, construction equipment, wheelchair?
The fact is that nearly all of the so-called “climate scientists” who get published don’t know a damned thing about the hard sciences that actually constitute any plausible explanation of our planet’s climate – that would be physics, chemistry, biology, astrophysics, biochemistry, geochemistry, geology, thermodynamics, archaeology, physical anthropology, etc. etc. The so-called “climate scientists” are merely computer modelers, or else people in other areas of science who include a link in their research to “climate change” in order to get their grants funded and their papers published in so-called “peer reviewed” journals – they’re really science whores, not climate scientists.
No serious scientist or engineer professionally qualified and engaged in the hard sciences believes that CO2 is the planet’s thermostat, controlling everything, as the warmunists claim. Nor will any person seriously educated in geohistory believe that the Earth was ever unchanging, and that people, animals, and plants have not adjusted to truly catastrophic changes in climate, let alone the small potatoes slight warming over the last 183 years after the end of the widely-acknowledged Little Ice Age.
A “climate scientist” is a computer gamer, not a climatologist or any other kind of real scientist.
“they’re really science whores, not climate scientists”
Good way to put it!
I think that the woke spelling of that is “hoes.”
Cultural appropriation much, Clyde?
Where does that rank in the LGBQWERTY rankings ?
I would guess that graduates of University programs such as George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication are treated by the MSM, politicians and activists as “climate scientists”.
Of course only those already believers would sign up for that degree, which I’m sure is pretty light on physics and chemistry.
Unfortunately for your pathetic attempt at sarcasm, the new dawn of coal and oil is already here,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/15/king-coal-outdistancing-wind-solar-hydro-other-renewables/
Actually, there were about 11,000 signees of the “global climate emergency” declaration, and that listed included Mickey Mouse.
And Mickey Mann?
I hear Mickey Mouse has a Mickey Mann watch.
:<)
You must’ve heard that on TikTok.
A rich man’s son asked Daddy to buy him a Mickey Mouse outfit.
So Daddy bought the IPCC.
“The new dawn of oil and coal can’t be far behind”
It’s already here. Have you noticed what China and India and others are doing? They are not cutting back on coal, oil, and gas, but doing just the opposite.
CO2 emmissions are increasing. Are you worried? They aren’t.
Huddle in your basement, don your 3 masks, and shiver you naive one you.
But above all please don’t breed
In a way, who cares about the signatures? There is no crisis. And if there were, nothing currently being proposed in the West would have the slightest effect on it.
You are obviously ignorant of the fact that Clintel screens-for-merit those who apply to be a signatory on the World Climate Declaration.
You are obviously ignorant of the fact that many scientists (out of your asserted “tens of millions”) have the ethics to decline to sign a climate declaration because their speciality/career/experience/training have nothing at all to do with climate science.
You are obviously ignorant of the fact that many reputable scientists simply do not want to sign public declarations.
You are obviously ignorant.
I would have signed, but I wasn’t aware that signatures were being solicited. And I keep up on what is going on in the skeptical world more than the average scientist. So, I think that the importance of the number who did sign is that it is proof that there is more than just a handful of misfits who don’t support the UN paradigm.
Fact Check:
There are not tens of millions of scientistsThere are 1609 and counting, not 1600 (did you read the article?) and feel free to add these to the 37,000+ signatories of the Oregon PetitionNothing will make those evil greens/Marxists sit up and take notice, they are already proven incompetent, biased to religious levels and unwilling / incapable to / of rational, reasoned debateThere is no new dawn of oil & coal – it’s the same dawn, but globally perpetuating, as was started 200 years agoThank you for taking the time to prove yet again, that you have zero input of value on the climate topic
Tonyx,
As an Environmental Engineer with 30+ yrs experience, I was not deemed good enough to sign on to the statement.
The 1600+ signatories are very well qualified.
In the minds of Tonyx and his fellow travelers, only those who support the party line can be considered qualified.
A modern take on Mencken’s hobgoblins…..
EpochTimes
‘adjacency‘ is a new word to me but it happens all the time – esp if/when you ever try to add a comment into the BBC. On the rare occasions they open a thread.
It is that if you try to ‘show an example‘ or actually explain something, you will be ruled ‘Off Topic’ and summarily instantly cancelled.
As also happened inside (haha) Futurelearn when I went contrary to Monash University’s assertion that ‘drinking alcohol can be good for you‘
My entire account was deleted without a word.
And that’s what fear and control are all about.
(The Los Angeles ‘firework’ example is soooo beautiful in that video – there is hope.
He uses the word ‘madness’ a lot, also ‘herd mentality’.
and scepticism)
“The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. “
This is just a silly one. The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now. So in one way there is no surprise; it’s a tautology. It is warmer now because it was colder before.
“The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing.”
No, the IPCC has been accurate.
From the 2001 AR3 SPM, for example
“warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario, similar to the corresponding range of projections of the simple model used in Figure 5d”
Now I can just hear the howls. The indices are rigged etc.
But the statement was definite – “the world has warmed significantly less”
If no surface measure is acceptable, how can you say that?
Reach for UAH? That isn’t surface. It’s not what they were predicting. But even then…
Nick
Re LIA
it was also colder than the previous warm periods, and is considered to be one of the coldest epochs of the Holocene. Please save the “those periods were not global” whines since there is too much literature saying otherwise.
Nope. IPCC FAR’s (1990) BAU Scenario way overestimated warming up to 2016, even using faked surface “observations”:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/#:~:text=IPCC%20First%20Assessment%20Report%2C%201990&text=The%20FAR%20also%20assumed%20continued,range%20of%201.5%2D4.5C.
That link shows how good the predictions were. But this is Monckton style manipulation. Go back to just one report, pick out the extreme scenario, and then you can say
“The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing.”
But of course you can’t just pick one scenario out of the three they offered (0.3,0.2,0.1) without checking which scenario actually unfolded. And it wasn’t the extreme. It was pretty close to the middle one.
In fact, all later reports were pretty much in line with AR3.
Yes Nick the models are so “all-over-the-place” that they need umpteen of the stupid things…
… and they think taking an average of a whole bunch of totally crap models actually means anything.
NOT SCIENCE.. ! (But its all you have.)
“manipulation”
Come off it, Nick-pick.
The whole AGW farce is built on manipulation of data.
I’m sure that you are well aware of that, because you do it all the time yourself… intentionally !
THEN STOP USING GAS/OIL/COAL YOU BLITHERING FOOL! And I mean ALL OF IT including biproducts you seething creep.
Yes, “one” shouldn’t cherry-pick data, but unfortunately human nature results in “one” often doing so anyway.
Attached is a graph of the ranges for all IPCC GMST “projections” from the FAR (1990) to AR6 (2021), along with GISS — shifted to the IPCC’s “1990 = 0” standard — for reference.
NB : I’ve thickened the “AR3 (/ TAR)” lines to make them (slightly ?) easier to see.
It’s almost as though the IPCC updated their models with the empirical measurements, and reduced the “error ranges / confidence intervals” accordingly, as time progressed …
“It’s almost as though the IPCC updated their models with the empirical measurements, and reduced the “error ranges / confidence intervals” accordingly, as time progressed …”
Or, simply, that they got better. 1990 was very early days in GCM modelling; the first that really put it together was Hansen in 1987, and it wasn’t until about 1995 that they had successfully combined ocean and atmosphere models. Plus, of course, computers got a lot faster. Hansen spent five years computing the three scenarios.
No, the CHIMP6 models are worse than the CHIMP5 models.
Trouble with fast computers…
.. the same garbage in, just means you get a whole lot more GARBAGE OUT.
We can’t yet test the predictions of CMIP6. But we can for CMIP3, and from Mark’s graph above, they look very good.
“We can’t yet test the predictions of CMIP6.”
Yes, we can.
Only again mal-adjusted data.
You know the Chimps are wildly inaccurate..
Their crystal balls are cracked. !
See my post responding to “old cocky” about 5 (or 6 ?) posts below this one).
Wouldn’t “getting better” coincide with less difference from actual data?
I think that I will similarly adopt the phrase, “But this is Stokes style manipulation.”
Interestingly, the Third Assessment Report appears to be a closer match than the Fourth or Fifth.
Concentrations and temperatures do indeed seem to following “the middle one”, as bdgwx has shown a few times.
Emissions seem closer to “the high one”, and the reports seem to base the increase in concentrations on the emissions. Given that sinks have been much higher than expected in the earlier reports, has this been incorporated into the later reports?
At the beginning of the year Real Climate (remember them ?) did an update to their “Climate model projections compared to observations” webpage, to compare the outputs of the CMIP3 (used for the TAR of 2001 and AR4 in 2007), CMIP5 (for AR5 in 2013) and CMIP6 (for AR6 in 2021) modelling rounds against the “annual mean anomalies” GISTEMP dataset from 1980 to 2022.
URL : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Editorial note : I will be copying various URLs from that article as strings ending in “.png”. They should be “detected” by the WUWT (/ WordPress) HTML code and “autoloaded” in-line … if I’m lucky !
_ _ _ _ _
First, their comparison against the TAR, followed by a copy of their caption :
“Model spread is the 95% envelope of global mean surface temperature anomalies from all individual CMIP3 simulations (using the SRES A1B projection post-2000). Observations are the standard quasi-global estimates of anomalies with no adjustment for spatial coverage or the use of SST instead of SAT over the open ocean. Last updated: 16 Jan 2023.”
As you and Nick Stokes (at an absolute minimum) have noted there is a “good” match here.
So good that the RC team did not feel it necessary to “adjust” anything from 2004 to 2023 (and counting).
_ _ _ _ _
Now the same thing for CMIP5 (with the caption for the first option) :
“Model spread is the 95% envelope of true global mean surface temperature anomalies from all CMIP5 historical simulations (using the RCP4.5 projection post-2005). Forcing adjustment is updated from Schmidt et al. (2014). Observations are the standard quasi-global estimates of anomalies with no adjustment for spatial coverage or the use of SST instead of SAT over the open ocean. Last updated: 16 Jan 2023.”
Despite the CMIP5 models and “emissions pathways” being more recent than those used in CMIP3, the RC team chose to update the input forcings for the latter … but not the former …
_ _ _ _ _
The second option for CMIP5 (with caption) :
“As above, but using the blended SST/SAT product from the CMIP5 models produced by Cowtan et al (2015) instead of the pure SAT field. Note that this makes about a 0.05ºC difference in 2022 (compared to a 0.1ºC difference estimated from the forcings adjustment above). Last updated: 17 Jan 2023.”
OK, but a “gain” (?) of 0.05°C was hardly worth it, if you ask me (which nobody is) …
_ _ _ _ _
Finally, the CMIP6 comparison (and caption) :
“Model spread is the 95% envelope of surface air temperature anomalies using 37 model simulations from the historical runs and SSP2-4.5. TCR values used in the screen are Hausfather et al. (2022). Last updated: 20 Jan 2023.”
As NS noted about 5 posts above this one, after less than 2 years it really ought to be the case that it’s much too early to be able to “test the predictions of CMIP6” …
… and yet the RC team still chose to use a “filtered” set of CMIP6 models …
… which “just happened” to move the GISTEMP line from being in the bottom half of the (grey) range from 1999 onwards to roughly the middle of the (pink) “screened by TCR” subset.
Go figure.
Except not one of those temperature fabrication is remotely accurate for real global temperature.
They are faked “creations to make the models look like they work.
They are mal-adjusted from erratically spaced, every-changing urban-warmed and aircraft effected unfit-for-purpose surface sites.
Reality is that real temperature trends are FAR LOWER than the faked warming in the junk climate models.
Not really. They seem to have incorporated modifications to attempt to explain the 2016 El Nino, which then runs them too high for the subsequent Las Nina.
AR3 isn’t far off the mark, though a 2023 El Nino might give another spike.
Back in 2015, you incautiously admitted that GCMs are engineering models, Nick.
You know very well that engineering models cannot reliably extrapolate beyond their calibration bounds.
And yet you insistently tout the wonderfulness of GCM projections.
You know for a fact they’re worthless, and yet you push them anyway. Why is that, one wonders.
No, they are not “engineering” models.
They are not constantly being validated against anything real, like engineering models are.
“The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now. “
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read today, Nick. I guess the frost fairs are something you can only dream of. The last one was in 1814/1815.
It was a lot colder than now.
Gaudete!
I said (and you quoted)
“The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now. ”
You said
“It was a lot colder than now.”
???
You said “The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now. “
I laughed.
Have you ever considered doing the Edinburgh Fringe? You should. You’d go down a storm (sic)
And the MWP, RWP and the rest of the Holocene were WARMER than now.
Do you have a rational point to make.. because you failed completely…. again !
I would like to say you have degenerated into a clown act…
… but you have always been that way.
There’s a reason why the alarmist always start in 1979 or 1850.
1979 was the coldest time of the last 100 years, while 1850 was the coldest time of the last 10K to 12K years.
The coldest of all was 1683/4, 340 years ago. It then warmed overall for centuries before man-made CO2 got started.
Nick says “This is just a silly one. The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now” as if that somehow makes the warming meaningless. Nick, yours is the silly statement – the LIA was colder than now because from the LIA onwards the world warmed up without any assistance from man-made CO2 (and with sweet FA in the models). That warming continues today (and there’s still sweet FA in the models).
Nick is funny, I guess he fills the void left by Griff. He’s hopelessly wrong yet hopelessly human, too….. full of strange aberrations.
Griff was funny too. I imagine Griff had purple or pink hair.
Blue
I figure it’s magenta. … as in the international color of radioactive warning signage.
Sometimes yellow and black, sometimes yellow and magenta, sometimes but rarely red and black…. There is no standard, but most are yellow for starters.
More likely fluorescein green!
I see Nick as wearing a 3-layer tin foil hat !
With added tinsel.
Every town needs a chief village idiot…
Nick fills that role very well, helped by a couple of his fellow cultists.
And I am thankful for the warmth as should everybody. It’s subtle where I live and nobody would be able to even tell you there has been a small uptick except for the activist newsies et al.
“The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now” as if that somehow makes the warming meaningless”
It identifies no meaning. It is just a descriptor. Then it was cold, now it is warmer. That doesn’t say anything about CO2 or anything else. But…
No uncertainty bounds.
No basis to cool the past.
Look again!
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/08/15/at-the-molehills-of-madness/
But who knows? In geologic time you might get that elusive first citation…
“That doesn’t say anything about CO2 or anything else. But…”
BS Nick, and even you know it.
It says quite clearly that the warming started 100 years before CO2 could have possibly been the cause of the warming.
That casts into doubt that claim that the warmunists have been making that the warming that occurred after CO2 levels started to rise abrubtly, must have been caused by CO2.
Nick knows his graph is massively manipulated JUNK,
based on urban warming, aircraft affected sites,
ZERO southern ocean data before 2004.
It is a TOTAL FABRICATION. !
Look at the graph closely. It appears to show the LIA lasting until the 1920’s.
The chart is dishonest because it is scaled in a way to make it look scary with that artificial steep slope generated.
Why do you do it?
The data it uses is also NOT representative of global temperatures, but of unfit for purpose surface sites and totally made up ocean temperatures.
What is the baseline absolute temperature for this graph? Or, is it simply an annual average of all anomalies in the globe? From perusing the CRU website it looks like an average of anomalies and ignores both the stations absolute temperature, i.e., (-10 +1) is the same as (30 +1). That’s grand, but it also is an reason why one has difficulty finding individual stations anywhere that meet this growth.
We’ve already seen on this site numerous stations will no or limited growth in absolute temperatures. Where are the stations with growth of 2 to 3 degrees that would make the average so high?
You could go a long ways to confirming your analysis be simply showing a pairwise comparison of stations with little or no growth to ones with an offsetting large growth to make the averages here look real.
What is the combined variance of all the anomalies? It appears that the “error” is determined by the variance of the anomaly distribution. When subtracting two random variables, i.e., absolute temperature and baseline temperature, the variances of each should add causing the variance to carry the combined variance.
Hey clown, see that step around 2015.
It is called an El Nino
Reality is that there was near ZERO trend from 2001 -2015 just before that El Nino.
And near zero trend from 2016-2023
Like all AGW scammers, you HAVE to use those natural El Nino occurrences as a crutch…
.. because it is the only warming there is.
And they are absolutely nothing to do with CO2 or any other human causation.
Of course there is no positive trend in El Niño:
So it is absolutely not the cause of the observed warming. What you are seeing is simply the result of adding a sinusoidal function (ENSO) onto a linear increase:
Oh dear, the children have been at Alan’s computer again. !.
Why embarrass yourself but posting such silly little graphs?
Please address the fact that there is no positive trend in El Niño.
It’s BS.. you know that,. everyone know that.
The only atmospheric warming in the satellite era comes at the two major El Ninos.
If you can’t recognise that fact, no-one can fix your underlying zealotry and ignorance
Well then, prove that there has been a positive trend in El Niño. You’re saying the warming comes from the El Niños, I’m saying the El Niños are signals superimposed atop a long term warming trend. I’ve presented the ENSO index to support this point, and you’ve done jack to dispute that.
“superimposed atop a long term warming trend.”
Which is of course total balderdash.
But you are welcome to your fantasies.
No warming for 39 years out of 45 in UAH
UAH shows a warming trend across its period of record:
Again, please address the fact that the ENSO index shows no long term positive trend. Explain how you reconcile this fact with your insistence that the observed global warming trend is nothing more than an increasingly stronger El Niño.
Try this graph and tell us why the anomalies always return to the baseline mean.
Am I correctly reading that the baseline for that graph is 1991-2020? It’s blurry so I can’t discern what the labels say.
Irrelevant since the big ones creates the step warming events and with flat to cooling in between them.
Your sinusoidal graph doesn’t look anything like the staircase temperature graphs where there are decade long periods of no increase.
AlanJ basically proves he is absolutely clueless about El Ninos etc
Just like he is of everything else.
He has a child’s understanding at best.
Positive/negative trend argument over El-nino is irrelevant since they vary over time and in intensity, La-Nina is simply the ABSENCE of El-nino’s
Yet by a miracle the step warming only occurs at large El-Nino events and flat to a cooling in between them.
Your poor chart reading skill is obvious.
El Niños are high points, everything following an El Niño will typically be lower than the El Niño until the next one. Again, that is the pattern you get when you add a quasi-cyclic curve onto a linear increase. This series of steps. The positive/negative trend argument in the ENSO index is absolutely relevant and is the single most important point to consider in this argument. If El Niño is not getting stronger over time (no positive trend), then it cannot possibly be driving the observed surface warming trend.
“No, the IPCC has been accurate.
From the 2001 AR3 SPM, for example
“warming is likely to lie in the range of 0.1 to 0.2°C per decade over the next few decades under the IS92a scenario, similar to the corresponding range of projections of the simple model used in Figure 5d””
It wasn’t too difficult to predict the current warming. All they had to do was go back to previous warming periods and predict the warming would be similar. And it was.
See how easy it would have been to predict current warming. Predict that the current warming will be of the same magnitude as the warming in the past. Easy science.
The previous warmings had nothing to do with CO2. So why should the current warming be connected to CO2?
And keep in mind, that in the previous periods of warming, there came a period of cooling. Climate change alarmists want us to believe that cooling period will no longer occur.
Occam’s Razor suggests that it shouldn’t be.
A tired old plot that stops in 2009. But the Hadcrut plot from 1980 to 2023 is 0.191 C/decade (just as the IPCC had it). That is a period of 43 years, and there is no sign of it ending. 2023 will be hotter that any of those years, by quite a lot.
“A tired old plot that stops in 2009.”
That’s the way you describe Phil Jones’ chart?
Phil Jones, one of the principal bastardizers of the “global” temperature record? You should have great respect for Phil Jones. His lies and distortions of the temperature record are the only thing keeping you in business. Without the bastardized temperature record, you couldn’t claim we are experiencing unprecedented warming today.
One thing about Phil Jones chart is, like all bastardizers he shows the 1930’s as being cooler than the preset day, which is the BIg Lie, he perpetrated, but ole Phil shows the 1880s’s as being as warm as the 1930’s in his chart, which it was.
So, if the real temperature profile of the world shows that the 1930’s and the 1880’s are comparable in warmth to the present day, then there goes your CO2 narrative, down the drain.
So Phil Jones lied on part of the chart, the part where he shows the 1930’s as being cooler than the present, but he told the truth about the 1880’s and the 1930’s being equal in warming magnitude.
The true temperature profile should show all three periods on the same horizontal line on the chart.
No unprecedeted warming today = CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere.
So I can see why you want to dismiss it. Are you lying to yourself?
It is not Phil Jones’ chart.
All of Dr. Jones data is in the chart made by Jo Nova thus your deflection was dishonest.
“there is no sign of it ending”
Yep they just keep on mal-adjusting the data .
Fakery on top of fakery.
You know that, so why keep posting it. ?
Oh so climate/weather is not static? Thanks for the enlightenment. Good lord…ick.
Yeah, there is something silly there but it’s not from the article. The question of how much warming is attributable to natural variability may be settled science to ideologues, but ideologues don’t do science. That question is neither tautological, nor settled, but is instead central to our limited and in many ways rudimentary understanding of climate mechanisms. They have yet to provide convincing reasons for the heat records of the 20s and 30s nor the cooling of the postwar era either. They’ve made guesses or tried to dismiss them but we don’t even know to what extent they were natural either. Your dismissal is in lieu of an argument because there is no real argument to be made when you don’t know the answer.
Let’s say it has. The thrust of the article is there is no climate emergency. The IPCC insists that there is [at least its policy claims and projections for the pols do] that we have already breached tipping points, that disaster has already begun and looms ever larger. However most of these catastrophic projections are belied by the real science the IPCC actually produces. Why do most of your posts, this one included, address minor technical points in a sticklish manner but almost never address the IPCC’s, and other climate extremists’ dreadfully failed predictions and projections and their hair on fire claims? A person who only cares about accuracy in one direction and on relatively peripheral issues while ignoring glaring inaccuracies regarding central ones might want to reassess what is he’s seeking.
He is a known thread fogger focusing on the single tree stuff while ignoring the forest that shows the true picture of all those numerous failed prediction/projections and that HERE he doesn’t mention the then emissions forecast at all which is why his 1.0-2.0 range argument is misleading.
A post so nice, it had to be said twice?
Have no idea what it was a double in a post heck I didn’t even notice it until you mentioned it.
Now corrected.
The “LIA” is so called because it was colder than now.
So?
Can you tell me, Nick, what the RIGHT temperature of the earth is? Should it be LIA temperatures? Dust Bowl? Holocene Optimum? WHAT IS THE RIGHT TEMPERATURE?
Since we are dealing primarily with global average anomalies, ΔT, and not temperature, it is appropriate to acknowledge and quantify what global average temperature is associated with the anomalies. It is also necessary to state the RIGHT TEMPERATURE so where we stand can be known.
Knowing that you are going to accelerate 5 kpm means nothing unless you know your velocity at the current point in time.
It was more than just a period of colder weather. It was also a time when glaciers advanced in the Alps and threatened villages. It is also a time when glaciers advanced in the Sierra Nevada of California, Glacier National Park, and presumably in the Andes. The tail-end was when the infamous Donner Party was stranded by deep snow east of the summit of the Sierra Nevada. So, it is appropriate to call it a “Little Ice Age” for those reasons, not just because of some cold weather.
As usual, Nick spends lots of words in order to say nothing of merit.
Yes it’s a tautology to point out that since it was colder in 1850 than it is today, therefore today is warmer.
However, this fact also proves that most, if not all, of the warming since 1850, couldn’t have been caused by CO2.
It also points out that the temperature prior 1850 was warmer than 1850, It is also obvious that the pre-1850 warmth also could not have been caused by CO2.
Additionally, his two charts are excellent examples of cherry picking. They both start at local minima and end at local maxima. Reverse that for either chart and you end up with a falling trend line.
Is Google blocking/censoring access to CLINTEL’s website? When I try to connect to Clintel.org using Chrome my PC is blocked on the basis the site is on a url:Blacklist. On the other hand I can access the Clintel website using the DuckDuckGo browser. Strange!!
Not strange. Evil.
I had that problem too, tried another computer and .. no problems.
Do you use AVG?
I was able to access it using Chrome on my PC.
I suspect whatever you’re using to block “malicious” sites is the problem.
Sometimes you can “whitelist” a site that was blocked.
DDGo is fast becoming as compromised as QueerGoggles. Lately I often switch to Mojeek. It’s not as flashy, they don’t have a Video tab or Maps, but they give honest results. Researching the most mundane things seem to lock Q-Goggles and DuckDuckGoy into Correctness Mode, and you are only allowed to see Consensus Science.
I should probably not have told the trolls on here about this…
A lot of providers and especially companies have internal lists of blocked sites.
Doesn’t seem to be the case with my problem getting to the Clintel site from this computer…
My old computer connects to the same modem as this one and had no issues.
I suspect a DNS or anti-virus software issue.
From the article: “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”
I would call this being excessively optimistic.
Add this good article to the discussion:
https://electroverse.info/calling-out-the-climate-scam/
From the article: “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.”
You wouldn’t be saying that in the 1970’s, when the “Ice Age Cometh!” was rearing its ugly head. You would be saying its no surprise we are experiencing a period of cooling.
Actually, since the Little Ice Age ended, the Earth has experienced several periods of both cooling and warming.
When you say “it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming”, you are ignoring past periods of cooling, which gives the impression that the Earth has been warming constantly since the Little Ice Age. It has not.
At least two periods in the recent past have had similar warming to the current warming. Neither of those two periods of warming, which are of the same magnitude as current warming, were caused by human-derived CO2, yet some people want to claim the current warming is because of CO2. With no evidence, I might add.
In other words, quit ignoring the cooling phases of the Earth’s climate since the end of the Little Ice Age and quit giving the impression that we have seen constant warming since the Little Ice Age. This is a distortion of reality. We are no warmer today than we were in the recent past, as proven by the written, historical temperature records from around the world. So we are not really warming in the longterm, only in the shorterm.
Consensus they say. The “science” is settled they say.
Good sarcasm there! Next time, try reading with more attention. Those 1600 people signed for skepticism, not consensus.
The only thing the ‘skeptics’ consider ‘settled’, is the existential danger of basing public policy on the phantasmagorical, psychomedicated nightmares of the consensus climastrologists and their befuddles disciples trolling the internet, trying to ridicule anyone who disagrees with their Bolshevik wet dream of owning the world.
Every single one of you climastrologists think you are not “useless eaters”, convinced Ball Gates loves you and wants you as part of his 300 million world population allowed to survive his programme of “guiding human evolution”. I can’t wait to see your faces when we all line up at the edge of the pit, waiting for our chance to get clubbed by a robotic health service provider before it shoves us into the composter.
It was sarcasm. Guess I forgot to put in the marker. But thanks for the lecture in any case, your post is quite entertaining…
Yep, I caught the sarcasm, but you came across as batting for the Mickey Mann side, and I am morally obliged to fling ridicule at climastrologists, their venal enablers and their vapid disciples where I find them.
My tail wags for the compliment though, and thanx for not ripping me for the typos (it’s Baal Gates, not Ball).
From the article: “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. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation”
If there is no climate crisis, then what is the need for adaption? What would we be adapting to? A 2mm rise in sea level per year? Adapt to the heat? We’ve been here before many times. We have already adapted to the heat.
If there is no climate crisis, and there is not, then there is nothing that needs to be adapted to.
And arguing for the benefits of CO2 is really not an argument against Global Warming, and will be seen as such by climate change alarmists.
Adaptation occurs wrt mild, non-crisis, changes as well as during actual crisis.
I adapt to the weather every day.
Adaptation occurs naturally: Canadians retiring to Florida and their cousins in the UK retiring to Spain. Colder to hotter, cloudy and wet to clear and dry.
And they are not moving because of +2°C per century – they are moving because of the -40C that happens every winter. Global warming has a few millennia to go before its even a consideration.
2 mm rise in oceans doesn’t require adaptation. The same rise, continued over a century does require adaptation. On the other hand, you also have 100 years in order to adapt.
The “No Climate Emergency” is a welcome movement by published scientists. In 2015 Freeman Dyson wrote in his foreward to Goklany’s paper:
“To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.
The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. . .That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
Synopsis:
https://rclutz.com/2023/08/15/antidote-for-co2-hysteria/
Money, status and job security. They’ll lie to themselves for all of that.
Mass hysteria.
Mass hysteria promoted by the Mass Media and the Internet.
These kinds of signatory lists are always a joke. The headline always reads, “scientists,” the signatory list always reads, “scientists & professionals.” The 4th signatory on the list is a retired teacher and computer programmer. Number 6 is a retired metallurgist and strategic planner. Number 8 a retired teacher and manager of a small business.
This is not a list of 1600 scientists worldwide who think global warming isn’t a problem, this is a list of a tiny handful of scientists and a bunch of randos who wanted to sign it. What silliness.
As Nick has said elsewhere, the rate of warming is exactly in line with what the IPCC and other scientific groups have projected. The letter can’t even get its basic facts straight, so the people who signed it are not well informed.
Looks like you didn’t get past the Australia list. Read harder.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf
From Belgium I see a commercial airline pilot, a retired civil engineer, a civil engineer, a network engineer, an “author of several [law] books,” a psychologist/writer, and so on. From Bolivia we have a congressman, from Canada someone whose credentials are simply a bachelor of science (in what we don’t know). It’s all very silly.
One could, I suppose, try to parse out from this list of signatories the number of people who actually have relevant credentials to be speaking on this subject. But I suspect it would rather dwindle to nothingness.
I’m a meteorologist…38yrs in the field. I would sign this i a NY minute. Do I count as a scientist? Good lord, get your mask on and panic.
A meteorologist with 38 years of experience does indeed count as a scientist. My point is not that the number of scientists who signed the letter is zero, my point is that it is not anywhere close to 1600. It is a lie t say you have a letter signed by 1600 scientists when you do not, and it is misleading to suggest that the preponderance of the actual scientists have relevant expertise when they do not.
Just so you know,engineers ARE scientists. I dare you do any kind of engineering without a sturdy grounding in at least two principles, at least, whereas your standard academical scientist hardly ever bothers to read anything outside his one single specialty.
Besides, electrical engineers have waaay more to contribute to climatology than all 97% of the world’s climastrologists. Are you, personally, even aware of the ionic flows ripping through our biosphere? Do you understand the biosphere includes tectonics, which arguable releases a lot more CO2 than all the dirty people you despise so much?
Climastrologists aren’t even taxonomists, they misidentify nearly every phenomenon they come across. Carbon dioxide, jeez Louise!
Not by trade, and they certainly can’t be expected by default to have extensive knowledge of climate science.
The whole point of silly letters like this one is to be able to point to them and say, “look how many of the people who know what they’re talking about agree with me.” If most of the people are just randos and not experts in the field then the letter is more than worthless. I can get you a letter signed by 1600 randos saying the earth is flat if you’d like.
Doing a letter like this broadcasts the message, “I couldn’t scrape up an impressive-sounding number of experts who agree with me so I got a whole bunch of randoms off the street instead,” which severely weakens the whole narrative.
Engineers are not scientists by trade? Do you listen to yourself? Engineering IS science put to work, IOW, science given a trade. Engineers are scientists by trade. As opposed to theory, yes?
I broadly agree with you that the list in question could have had a better name, but your reasons appear supercilious.
“Scientist by trade” means to make a living doing science – to perform research and publish the results of your research. Engineers are, well, engineers by trade.
BS on steroids. Being a scientist means you are someone who does science. You don’t have to make your living at it in order to be one.
Ah, I said being a scientist by trade. As in, a professional scientist. Of course anyone can hypothetically participate in the scientific process, but this letter specifically and exclusively lists professional credentials. The letter is implying that the jobs of the signatories illustrates their expertise on the matter of climate science.
Scientist “by trade” would eliminate many of the giants whose shoulders science stands on today. Let’s just dismiss them all.
I’m not the one saying the credentials matter, the authors of this list are the ones suggesting that. What I’m saying is that they are lying about the credentials of the signatories of the list.
People responding to me in this thread keep vacillating between claiming that credentials don’t matter at all and claiming that the credentials of the signatories on the list imbue it with authority. The disconnect is amusing to witness in real time.
Exactly the response I expected.
“credentials matter” != “scientist by trade”. You are applying your own criteria and then attacking the paper based on that. This is what is known as a strawman argument.
The title of the post is “1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration.” Many are not scientists, which makes the title of this post a flagrant lie. I think that matters. You’re now trying to equivocate, suggesting the signatories might secretly be scientists. That’s silliness, and you know it.
I’m not suggesting that the signatories are not smart people, I’m not even denying that some of them might be secret climate Einsteins, I’m saying the title of this post is a lie, and that is 100% objectively true. 1600 scientists did not sign the letter, 1600 random people did, some of whom are scientists, many of whom are not.
If you believe this letter matters (and I don’t, not a bit), it’s because you believe that credentials matter. If you believe that credentials matter, then you must agree that claiming that people are scientists when they are not is dishonest.
This will be my last reply to you since it’s obvious you refuse to see your own fallacy.
By your definition, none of the historical “citizen scientists” were actually scientists. And it is a definition that was NOT included, especially in the title. YOU are the one adding “by trade”, thus changing the criteria.
You have done an excellent job tearing down your strawman.
The vast majority of the people who make their living pontificating on climate science have no expertise in science, much less climate science.
Engineers are applied scientists.
They know FAR more about how the real world operates than any academic scientist will ever know.
And most “climate scientists™” are not scientists at all. !
Engineers can be smart people, but the title “civil engineer” does not indicate in any way whatsoever that the person is an expert in climate science or should be viewed as an authority on the subject. My doctor is incredibly smart but I wouldn’t trust him to build a skyscraper.
One doesn’t have to be an expert in climate science to spot the many holes in climate science.
Yeah, such where is the “Hot Spot” (still not found after 30 years of searching) or the Positive Feedback Loop (That has never existed in the last billion years) or that energy is leaving the planet at a much greater rate than CO2 could generate by the IPCC forcing formula which is NOT even close yeah there are GAPING holes in the stupid CO2 conjecture.
You have NO IDEA what an Engineer is, or has to study.
You are basically IGNORANT from quicksand below your feet to the empty space between your ears.
Alan has just shown that he has absolutely zero comprehension of how the world’s civilisations have been built.
I love it when the AGW cultists show their profound ignorance every time they comment.
He’s just another elitist who finds it impossible to believe that people who don’t have the type of schooling that his parents and the government paid for, can possibly be smart.
In my experience, most of the people who tout themselves as being climate scientists have little to no knowledge of actual science.
Like you, they read the press reports from those who make their living pushing the climate scare, and they copy the latest talking points memos from the same.
It only takes one to refute psuedoscientific claptrap.
Deleted!!!
Stop TROLLING!
The 1600 list is part of the article, and you keep avoiding the questions asked about the statements in the post.
SUNMOD
Why haven’t you addressed the declarations in the link……. nah that requires having to think of which you show little ability of, pushing credentials arguments is easy and lazy thus your trolling is manifest.
Because the declarations present no factual or scientific basis. They are just bald assertions, made with no data or citations to research. We are supposed to believe them because, purportedly, 1600 scientists also believe them. The letter is a blatant appeal to authority, which is only compelling if the authorities who signed it are actual subject matter experts. Thus, I am pointing out why the attempt at appealing to authority here fails.
Does this make sense to you or do you want to censor me some more?
Thus, by your own admission you have no counterpoints to those stated declarations not even this one which is factually true:
“CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.”
and,
“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, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.”
I doubt you even read them in the link you are here to babble about whether signatures are valid or not.
This is pathetic on your part.
CO2 is a plant food, it is also a greenhouse gas and is responsible for the observed 20th century warming trend. This declaration is both trivially true and incomplete.
Global warming has indeed increased extreme weather events, the declaration is a flagrant lie. From the IPCC:
Now, because the declaration cites not a single piece of empirical evidence to support the assertion it is making, we can consider it rebutted and dismissed. That was easy.
Now we can return to the absurdity of the lie that the list of signatories is comprised of scientists when it is not.
I have seen all of bilge you post many times over 15 years but when I post the following warmist/alarmists runs away in fear because the CONTENT of the article is too dangerous to handle:
Where is the Climate Emergency?
You WILL make excuses on why you refuse to address it which is a 100% certainty as shown in this thread I posted where they NEVER after 28 pages addressed the CONTENT of the article and the same at another forum where Warmist/alarmists show real terror of the article.
You’ve just completely ignored everything in my comment.
Regards to the article you link, I don’t think the term “climate emergency” is a scientific one, and we cannot debate whether such a thing exists using scientific evidence. There is no constant and rigorous definition for a climate emergency that I am aware, and so we cannot possibly evaluate whether global warming presents one.
The basic flaw in the article is the logical structure of the primary argument. The article is saying, “global warming presents no possible threats because things that aren’t predicted to happen for decades haven’t happened yet.” Read that sentence a few times and see if you can tell me where the problem is. There are other issues with individual points in the article, but they are hardly worth focusing on in light of this glaring issue.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are full of baloney as you didn’t have time to read that very long article and you LIED since I did address it by pointing out I have seen this same warmist/alarmist argument for 15 some years as quote you made wasn’t any of your own words just another cut and paste exercise without a link a possible copyright violation.
Meanwhile the phrase YOU wrote is incorrect as CO2 isn’t a plant food, another evidence of your low science literacy since it is the plants that makes the carbohydrates they live on and winter over, ever heard of the PHOTOSYNTHESIS process?
LOL
Hold on, I adopted the phrasing from the letter:
So are we now both arguing that the declarations contain inaccurate information? Not sure I expected that twist, but I welcome it.
For your information, I read the entire article, and I don’t feel that saying, “I’ve seen this before” is an adequate response. I classify that as ignoring what I wrote and being dismissive. It’s not productive and degrades the quality of discussion. Physician, heal thyself.
No, I was making it clear you are here to waste people time with circular arguments and ignore questions which you have done repeatedly.
You failed to notice the error which I corrected for you HERE to make you look ignorant about how plants get their “food” a common error many make calling CO2 “plant Food” just as many calls Fertilizer “plant Food” when it isn’t.
Your ignorance has been exposed repeatedly by many here while you present the same bilge over and over no one here agrees with you because you start with a lie then when challenged you never answer it with evidence thus it remains a lie about the signatures.
“You’ve just completely ignored everything in my comment.”
This is the only sensible thing to do.
When you keep typing gullible gibberish and fakery, what do you expect.
Except that NONE of the bold piece of garbage is true when you look at actual real data.
As you say the bold text lacks totally in empirical data.
It is just mantra and model-based nonsence.
Fit only for the ignorance of the bog-standard climate zealot.!
“it is not anywhere close to 1600″
Just because the description does not say so?
The vast majority ARE scientists.
I checked several of the ones that were not stated as such, and yes, they ARE scientists
YOU, on the other, most definitely ARE NOT !
All fields that require people to think study, and know what they are doing.
If only climate science required this of it’s adherents.
Says AlanJ, who is a total non-entity with very little education and very little knowledge of anything.
Every statement is true. (no matter how much Nick twists the truth)
You just don’t like the REALITY of what is being said.
AlanJ is very good at reading and memorizing press releases.
Beyond that, not much.
Your credentials fallacy is a sign of your ignorance and lack of attention to the declarations in the link.
Your trolling is boring.
Could you elaborate on what the “credentials fallacy” is?
LOL, your ignorance is amazing.
The Credentials Fallacy: What It Is and How to Respond to It
Excerpt:
The credentials fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses an argument by stating that whoever made it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their argument must be wrong or unimportant.
More in the LINK
You keep pushing the credentials fallacy over and over.
He didn’t know it had a name.
You expect him to deal with the actual facts? That would require thinking.
Of course that isn’t what I’m doing. I’m not dismissing the arguments being presented in the letter on the basis of the credentials of the signatories, I am saying the claim that 1600 scientists signed the letter is false. Do you agree with that assessment? It is in the title of this WUWT post, and it is a lie.
You have arbitrarily applied your own criteria of “scientist by trade” which was never claimed. If one of the signatories were Albert Einstien while he was working as a patent clerk, your criteria would exclude him.
If you were to tell me, “9 out of 10 dentists agree that Tony_G brand toothpaste is the only paste you should be putting in your mouth,” and you show me a list of your 10 dentists and I see that 3 of them are plumbers, 1 is a patent clerk, 2 are accountants, and 1 is an orthopedic surgeon, and 3 are dentists, I’m going to say, “this doesn’t look like a list of 10 dentists.” You can then argue that I don’t know that some of the plumbers might one day become renowned dentists, or that the accountant isn’t secretly running a dental practice on the side, and that would in theory be true, but that isn’t going to make your list more compelling.
I’m not saying, “the only thing that matters is dentists.” I’m saying, “you lied to me about your list of dentists.” You would be the one saying dentists’ opinions matter, and you would be the one presenting a purported list of dentists supporting your brand.
I’ll give you one more reply since I just saw this.
You can’t make a valid comparison using a licensed trade (i.e. dentist). 4 out of 5 programmers agree this block of code is well written does not require that they all are programmers by trade, as that is not a licensed trade.
DELETED
You were asked to support your claim that the article is a lie you avoid it to continue your endless thread bombing saying the same thing over and without any evidence provided as requested.
Here are a sample of questions/requests YOU have avoided answering,
LINK
LINK
LINK
Just to be clear, you’re censoring me because I’m not responding to the specific comments you want me to respond to? That is… beyond controlling and abuse of your powers as a moderator. I am not bombing this thread, I made a single top-level comment and have done nothing more than reply to people responding to that comment. That is to say, I’ve been engaging with willing participants in an active discussion.
Also, to get the facts in order, I have directly responded to your request that I address declarations from the letter. You blatantly ignored everything in my comment.
sunmod can either argue with you or moderate you. He cannot do both and I just told him in an email. Please accept my apology.
No problem, I appreciate your actions, that is a sensible policy.
It appears Alan can’t support his argument that the list of signatures is a lie thus I am done with you here.
Enjoy repeating yourself.
/yawn/
You have stated over and over again that the opinions of these signatories should be ignored because in your mind, they lack the proper credentials.
Then you turn around and proclaim that you have never engaged in credentialism. Self awareness is missing from your list of skills I see.
I’m not saying that, I’m saying their opinions are no different than the opinion of any random person you might encounter on the street. We are told they are scientists because that is supposed to lend gravitas to the letter, but they are not all scientists, and we are being lied to. WUWT has now participated in spreading this falsehood, and other media outlets are surely going to pick it up as well.
If the title were reworded to, ““There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 People Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration” I wouldn’t have a single issue with it. But it’s a lie, so I take issue with that.
Still waiting for the proof that it is a lie which you have repeatedly claimed then dodged when asked.
Waiting
Waiting,
Waiting……
I don’t know what else to tell you that I haven’t already said. The title of the post says that 1600 scientists signed a letter. When you look at the list of signatories, the majority aren’t scientists. To say the letter is a list of 1600 scientists is a lie.
Do you dispute this? If so, on what grounds? I don’t think a single person in this thread has actually addressed this fact, the whole discussion has been equivocation over whether or not citizen scientists can hypothetically exist.
You have yet to support your hilarious assertion fella…..,
Pony up the evidence fella.
You will NEVER get any relevant evidence from the petty little climate zealot.
Only if one defines “in line” as having a positive slope. The “Exxon Knew” collection of graphs have widely varying slopes. Jim Hansen’s infamous “hide the thermostats” presentation to Congress has mostly unrealistic increases. The only projection that comes close to reality is his “Draconian Reductions,” which also included assumed volcanic eruptions that didn’t occur. A simple linear extrapolation of his own data did a better job of predicting the future than any of his models.
Personally, I’d suggest that “in line” should mean +/-1% of the prediction. None that I have seen fit that description. None are even +/-10%.
So bouncing along the bottom of the error bands is, exactly what they predicted?
As to your objections regarding the signatories, do you have any evidence that none of them are qualified to give an opinion, or are you one of those fools who claim that only those who make their living from this scam are qualified to comment on the scam?
The signatories are as qualified as any random off the street to give their opinions, and they are entitled to them. That doesn’t mean we need to take their opinions seriously.
And you are not qualified to even make that judgment.
You are a mindless parrot-like AGW cult zealot.
No-one should ever take anything you say as anything but ignorance.
In your opinion, there are climate scientists, and the rest of the world are just ignorant proles.
Your ignorance of science and elitist tendencies mark you as a clueless twit who has never worked a day in your life at a real job.
Who are “we”?
In your “opinion” the opinion of people who have spent years, if not decades, proving that they know how to analyze problems and come up with workable solutions to those problems, are no better than a random person on the street?
Your continued attempts to defend your indefensible claims are just forcing you to become more and more ludicrous.
I can’t take YOUR opinion seriously when you repeatedly fail to back them up with evidence that it is a lie.
When are you going to stop dodging the request for the evidence?
Come on little child.
Where is the climate crisis?
Globe is cooler than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Nothing happening with extreme events etc that isn’t part of normal weather variability.
Manic warming only exists in the climate models that are basically just computer games.
Some really stupid people are really, really gullible and lack the education to tell the difference between computer games and reality. (you are one of those)
And no, Nick is just twisting and squirming the model fakery to match his and your idiotology.
Most rational mind pick that up very quickly… others are not so rational and allow themselves to be trapped by a cult-like religion.
WAKE UP, and stop being so stupid. !
He will dodge your request as he is busy pushing the credentials fallacy over and over it all he can do here.
Sadly this should be old news. Worse the reality of this revelation will have no impact on the Central Authoritarian Narrative. To them, By Man, we have a crisis and only a Central Government can resolve it.
Heresy! Cut off their grants!
They don’t have grants, so they are free to tell you the truth.
It is interesting to put Clintel’s list of 1609 scientists worldwide, who have signed in agreement with the above-listed World Climate Declaration statements, up against the recent rulings from Montana (USA) District Court Judge Kathy Seeley wherein she states in her Paragraph 67 that “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions.”
(see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/15/kids-win-montana-climate-change-lawsuit/#comment-3766648 )
So much for some “rulings” from the bench.
I’m sure that Solomon is rolling his eyes.
“Judge Kathy Seeley wherein she states in her Paragraph 67 that “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions.””
That’s not true, Judge. The infamous 97 percent consensus we hear about all the time, is in reality about a three percent consensus. Judge, the people who did this study about scientists and their opinions on CO2 warming, twisted the interpretation to go from three percent consensus to 97 percent consensus.
The “97 percent consensus” Is a Big Lie, Judge. The people who created it knew it was a Big Lie. They had an agenda and needed to lie to promote it.
You have been fooled by a false consensus narrative. Don’t feel too bad, you are not alone in being fooled, but fooled, you have been. The people who testified before you distorted reality and presented a distorted picture of the world and CO2 to you.
Objection, Your Honor! That’s hear-say, your Honor. it’s not evidence of anything.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific.
And granting agencies need to driven off of their positions that no grants be awarded to scientists who might show conclusions counter to the UN-EU groupthink of imminent disaster unless humans give up their longstanding energy sources NOW!
Mattias Desmet introduced some understanding of obdurate misbelief among highly intelligent people such as scientists. Since his “mass formation” made a worldwide splash, it has been discovered that highly educated people are actually MORE susceptible to stubborn belief in “bullspit” than others because they have been trained and trained to follow authorities in their fields.
Separately, I have learned that PEOPLE CANNOT CHANGE WHERE THEY ARE MORE THAN HALF WRONG. Actual climate experts are not the only ones having trouble telling people the truth. We saw plenty of it in the COVID hysteria as well, and I am sure each of you can think of other times when facts just did not matter.
We (and other truth-tellers) make a huge mistake when we try to make people wrong. This NEVER works and after about 25 years of AGW hysteria, it is about time temperature truthers faced this reality.
“Catch them doing something right” “The One-Minute Manager” book
Climate hysterics are finding out about how better farming techniques sequester carbon in the soil. Everybody knows that soil rich in “organic matter” is more fertile. This is something we can work WITH them on.
Heating temperatures globally is a crock, and the MSM narratives are downright anti-scientific. But there is MICROclimate. One backyard can have a different microclimate than the neighbor. Or one farm. Where plow-based agriculture has stripped the soil bare and destroyed the soil structure, surface temperatures can reach 160F. That is warming all right and that IS serious. Solutions exist that will make the whole world a greener, richer place, and reverse thousands of years of “desertification.” Working on that is whole lot more FUN than arguing until you are blue in the face, anyway.
Books that will help are numerous. My faves:
Restoration Agriculture, by Mark Shepard
Water In Plain Sight; and Cows Save the Planet by Judith Schwartz
Dirt to Soil by Gabe Brown.
A point I have often made is that, unlike plants, cows will take themselves to water, and cows can graze on land too steep to farm, with soil too thin to grow much but grass.
…and another ten pluses…
My solution was ridicule, I like yours better.
…but ridicule is still easier in the supermarket queue, nobody wants a lesson in soil biology while their ice cream is melting as we wait for the cashier’s hangover to clear…
Activists will say it’s paid for by big oil. Media and governments will ignore it just like they ignored all the other declarations signed by thousands of scientists. The global warming scam will continue unabated.
Add these 1600 to the signatories of the Oregon Petition and that’s almost 40,000 highly professional scientists, academics & Engineers that don’t believe the alarmist guff – I’m with them
ditto,
but I only have Science and Engineering degrees and a PhD in engineering,
.. but I’m not a climate zealot… so what would I know. 😉
According to AlanJ, unless you make your living doing climate science, you aren’t allowed to have an opinion.
The fact that 90% of the people who make a living at climate science would be out of a job if the scam ever fell apart, is completely lost on him.
I do hope this article isn’t quoting the Declaration verbatim. There are loads of grammatical howlers in it – quite sufficient to make it look, shall we say, a bit hick.
There must be thousands of scientists like me, who would willingly sign this declaration but because of certain events did not sign it.
Geoff S
There are lots of people who’s jobs would be in jeopardy were they to be outed as a climate skeptic.
The problem is that there is too much money to be made by perpetuating the “climate crisis” myth. So it’s up to consumers to show that they will not be pressured into taking climate action; e.g., making major lifestyle changes, accepting new taxes, buying overpriced green products, etc. They should instead and among other things make certain to vote against candidates and proposals that intend to force them into the above.
The famous 97% arose from the multiply fraudulent Cook et al (2013) excoriated in detail by José Duarte and Andrew Montford in the GWPF Paper No 11. I’ll spare you the adjectives but Pres Obama thought it was marvellous.
Anyone remember the 31,000 American scientists in petition.project.org?
Interview Allan MacRae – Clintel
Hear, hear! They must have been listening to me when they wrote this…they hit all my talking points.
In fairness I am only a layman with common sense and skepticism, and I was informed by my own research, other real scientists in various disciplines who also have common sense and skepticism, and of course this site which is an invaluable resource!
I’m old enough to know when comments have been taken over by trolls. Here we see a tag team of trolls. How is it they have so much free time to muddy the waters while dominating the discussion? And why are they here at all on a sceptics’ website? Are they gluttons for abuse? Wouldn’t life be more pleasant for them on an alarmist site? It all seems to point to monetary compensation, me thinks. Don’t feed the trolls!