Measuring temperature from GROUND level compared to 2 metres above is hardly climate change.
"A Cleverly Staged Hoax." .Former German TV Meteorologist Slams "Climate Hysteria" (notrickszone.com)
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Measuring temperature from GROUND level compared to 2 metres above is hardly climate change.
"A Cleverly Staged Hoax." .Former German TV Meteorologist Slams "Climate Hysteria" (notrickszone.com)
Where were you measuring the temperatures when you claimed, "May and June have average max temperatures of 22.3 and 19.5 yet nearly every day it seems the max has been around 17C."?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
If it's on Truth Social you don't need to fact check it. They've hired the Babylon Bee as their professional fact checkers.
Select to expand quotephiln said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
If it's on Truth Social you don't need to fact check it. They've hired the Babylon Bee as their professional fact checkers.
Yep, the weird thing about conspiracy theorists is how gullible, trusting and passive they are. They just sit there and accept crap like the "1600 scientists" lie and just spew it back up without being alert enough to do the easy checks to see that it's bull****. They really are sheep, but actually that's a bit harsh on sheep.
The other thing is that they get noisy about this sort of stuff but don't actually do anything about it. I don't like corruption so I worked in anti-corruption investigations and our teams brought down a bunch of people and big corporations by actually doing proper investigations, getting proper evidence, and getting proper vast penalties against them. Other people, like my wife's friends and family, take on the powers that be and end up on secrete police and organised crime watch and death lists - and in one case, they get taken out and die in their own hallway after a hit organised by those in power. This was, of course, on another continent where they play for keeps. My wife is now a member of a group of scientists (real ones, popularly known as the "data thugs") that tracks down the minority of papers that are bad science, publicises the defects, and often gets the papers withdrawn and the scientists looking for new work.
What they did, and what we did, worked. We actually get results. What these conspiracy theory guys do (putting up posts) doesn't work. So why do they spend their time doing something that is useless, instead of actually doing what some of us did and actually getting out there and achieving actual results?
Obviously that's a rhetorical question. Conspiracy theorists won't actually do anything because they are scared, even though there is nothing to be scared about. I think cowardice is actually the main characteristic of the conspiracy theorist. People who have guts and want to actually make a difference go out and do stuff that actually works. People who only post conspiracy stuff on the internet are just wimps who are taking the easy way out.
^Yes. Conspiracy Theorists just spruik garbage from the fake news echo chamber. When they are proven to be abjectly incorrect, they lay low for a day or so, and then re-emerge with more garbage hoping that nobody will hold them accountable. That's why real scientists shouldn't waste their time debating their mindless drivel.
"Sea Ice Extent (SIE) is defined as the area covered by a significant amount of sea ice, that is the area of ocean covered with more than 15% Sea Ice Concentration (SIC)."
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
You clearly are suffering from some type of Stockholm Syndrome.
They admit cloud seeding is happening to induce rainfall and block the sun.
Geoengineering its called.
I wish i had a dollar for every time you have called posters on this General Discussion liars 
A conpiracy liar at my local pub was telling me, a few weeks back, that the gubament was seeding clouds. He gave me a newsletter to critique and wasn't happy with my peer review.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
You clearly are suffering from some type of Stockholm Syndrome.
They admit cloud seeding is happening to induce rainfall and block the sun.
Geoengineering its called.
I wish i had a dollar for every time you have called posters on this General Discussion liars
I suspect that cloud seeding to induce rainfall and blocking the sun are contradictory aims.
I wish I had a dollar for each time someone said they didn't beLIEve things.
I do think its good though that Chris calls people out directly for being LIARS while the rest of us just dance around it.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
A conpiracy liar at my local pub was telling me, just the other day, that the gubament was seeding clouds. He gave me a newsletter to critique and wasn't happy with my peer review. It wasn't you was it?
Did he explain what was bad about seeding clouds? I guess that level of detail is probably not coming from a nutjob in a pub.
Is seeding a cloud where you drop a seed in the air and all the moisture grows out of nowhere? 
It's a shame you can't 'seed a cloud' when there are no clouds around. It would help solve a lot of issues.
The Conspiracy Liar's story about cloud seeding was that the gubament seeded clouds to deliberately cause flooding on the east coast so that they could buy back properties at less than market value.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
You clearly are suffering from some type of Stockholm Syndrome.
They admit cloud seeding is happening to induce rainfall and block the sun.
Geoengineering its called.
I wish i had a dollar for every time you have called posters on this General Discussion liars
I call some posters here liars because that's what they are. Now that you are here, tell us why you lied and claimed that the 1600 signatories were scientists, when anyone who isn't a sheep can look at the list and see that many of them are NOT scientists.
There's no room for you to move here. Don't wimp out and try to run away from the question; it's too simple a query for anyone who is not a completely dishonest coward to be able to wriggle and slime away from.
Come on, tell us why you lied - or if you just swallowed a line because you were too gullible to check your facts.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
The Conspiracy Liar's story about cloud seeding was that the gubament seeded clouds to deliberately cause flooding on the east coast so that they could buy back properties at less than market value.
The thing that makes me laugh about these sorts of things is that 'gubmints' can't organise many things very well because of their structure, yet somehow they believe that they can coordinate a clever scheme like this. A rogue politican could, but as a group you would get bogged down every step of the way.
I can see the realestate ads now... 'for sale, prime riverfront land, only been flooded once in 30 years and ready for a new owner. Start with a clean slate.'
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Pcdefender said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
You clearly are suffering from some type of Stockholm Syndrome.
They admit cloud seeding is happening to induce rainfall and block the sun.
Geoengineering its called.
I wish i had a dollar for every time you have called posters on this General Discussion liars
I call some posters here liars because that's what they are. Now that you are here, tell us why you lied and claimed that the 1600 signatories were scientists, when anyone who isn't a sheep can look at the list and see that many of them are NOT scientists.
There's no room for you to move here. Don't wimp out and try to run away from the question; it's too simple a query for anyone who is not a completely dishonest coward to be able to wriggle and slime away from.
Come on, tell us why you lied - or if you just swallowed a line because you were too gullible to check your facts.
I seem to remember you also swallowed their science on something else, think the last 3 years.
Turns out their science was for the greater part a lie if not an outright lie.
They had every Tom, Dick and Harry pushing them including politicians, movie stars and TV celebs.
I remember Mr T pushing them and influencing kids especially, not with science but with blatant propaganda. Talk about selling your soul.
Absolutely shameful when you look at the harm it caused and is still causing.
Kids are more easily influenced by their hero's / stars.
If the last 3 years has shown us one thing its the science is often wrong.
Follow the money.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..Chris 249 said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
s
I seem to remember you also swallowed their science on something else, think the last 3 years.
Turns out their science was for the greater part a lie if not an outright lie.
They had every Tom, Dick and Harry pushing them including politicians, movie stars and TV celebs.
I remember Mr T pushing them and influencing kids especially, not with science but with blatant propaganda. Talk about selling your soul.
Absolutely shameful when you look at the harm it caused and is still causing.
Kids are more easily influenced by their hero's / stars.
If the last 3 years has shown us one thing its the science is often wrong.
Follow the money.
Stop wimping out - tell us why you said "over 1600 scientists" signed the declaration when that is simply not true. Come on - tell us the truth.
Only a dishonest coward would be too scared to deal with the fact that what they wrote was bull****. Stop running away from the issue. Just tell us why you lied, or whether you were just too silly to check.
Tell us the truth for once - are you a liar, or are you gullible?
Pcdefender.... Stop wimping out - tell us why you said, "May and June have average max temperatures of 22.3 and 19.5 yet nearly every day it seems the max has been around 17C. No let up in sight for the next week also. Global Warming it seems also causes significant cooling."
Lol - still on your attack the messenger rather than the message strategy Chris.
Hate breeds hate so i prefer to stay away.
A digital social credit scheme with the public given carbon credits is surely coming. Once in place you will not be able to exit.
Aldous Huxley in his famous talk about the book Brave New World said the problem might be people will actually love their slavery.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Lol - still on your attack the messenger rather than the message strategy Chris.
Hate breeds hate so i prefer to stay away.
A digital social credit scheme with the public given carbon credits is surely coming. Once in place you will not be able to exit.
Aldous Huxley in his famous talk about the book Brave New World said the problem might be people will actually love their slavery.
The slave morality you reference proposes a higher authority, the master, creates morals and the masses, slaves, obey without question. This dynamic has been going on for ages in most societies and can be applied to any number of endeavours where people believe blindly what they see or hear. Huxley was stating no more than has been recognised by Nietzsche etc... and it has been regarded as a thinly veiled dig a religion in general, not unlike much of his work.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Aldous Huxley in his famous talk about the book Brave New World said the problem might be people will actually love their slavery.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Lol - still on your attack the messenger rather than the message strategy Chris.
Hate breeds hate so i prefer to stay away.
A digital social credit scheme with the public given carbon credits is surely coming. Once in place you will not be able to exit.
Aldous Huxley in his famous talk about the book Brave New World said the problem might be people will actually love their slavery.
In your usual dishonest way you are ignoring the fact that your "message" is bull****. Your message was that 1600 scientists signed a paper. That was not true. Your message is wrong.
So why did you lie? Or are you just too gullible to have bothered to check before writing bull****?
I haven't had to work since I was 55, I've got nice houses, a lovely farm, great family and a nice yacht. You're lying if you think that's slavery.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I seem to remember you also swallowed their science on something else, think the last 3 years.
Turns out their science was for the greater part a lie if not an outright lie.
They had every Tom, Dick and Harry pushing them including politicians, movie stars and TV celebs.
I remember Mr T pushing them and influencing kids especially, not with science but with blatant propaganda. Talk about selling your soul.
Absolutely shameful when you look at the harm it caused and is still causing.
Kids are more easily influenced by their hero's / stars.
If the last 3 years has shown us one thing its the science is often wrong.
Follow the money.
Hmm, I guess you are talking about conspiracy theorist Pete Evans and his $15k Biocharger?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
I seem to remember you also swallowed their science on something else, think the last 3 years.
Turns out their science was for the greater part a lie if not an outright lie.
They had every Tom, Dick and Harry pushing them including politicians, movie stars and TV celebs.
I remember Mr T pushing them and influencing kids especially, not with science but with blatant propaganda. Talk about selling your soul.
Absolutely shameful when you look at the harm it caused and is still causing.
Kids are more easily influenced by their hero's / stars.
If the last 3 years has shown us one thing its the science is often wrong.
Follow the money.
Jibber Jabber.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said..
I seem to remember you also swallowed their science on something else, think the last 3 years.
Turns out their science was for the greater part a lie if not an outright lie.
They had every Tom, Dick and Harry pushing them including politicians, movie stars and TV celebs.
I remember Mr T pushing them and influencing kids especially, not with science but with blatant propaganda. Talk about selling your soul.
Absolutely shameful when you look at the harm it caused and is still causing.
Kids are more easily influenced by their hero's / stars.
If the last 3 years has shown us one thing its the science is often wrong.
Follow the money.
Jibber Jabber.
Basil Zempilas, Lord Mayor of Perth, WA, Confronted Over COVID19 Vaccine Deaths (bitchute.com)
Select to expand quotephiln said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
If it's on Truth Social you don't need to fact check it. They've hired the Babylon Bee as their professional fact checkers.
Compared to Snopes haha
www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html
"One of the most important factors that is driving the decline in corals on many reef systems including the Great Barrier Reef is increasing sea temperatures caused by climate change and this results in mass bleaching events which kills many of the corals that form the foundation of the reef itself."
Good to know that Jennifer Marohasy's colleague, Stuart Ireland, was involved in this important work.
Select to expand quoteremery said..
"One of the most important factors that is driving the decline in corals on many reef systems including the Great Barrier Reef is increasing sea temperatures caused by climate change and this results in mass bleaching events which kills many of the corals that form the foundation of the reef itself."
Good to know that Jennifer Marohasy's colleague, Stuart Ireland, was involved in this important work.
There bucket loads of zooxanthalle returning to the coral now that there's less sunscreen in the water.
Select to expand quoteSublime said..philn said..Chris 249 said..Pcdefender said..
Over 1,600 Scientists Sign 'No Climate Emergency' Declaration | The Epoch Times
International scientists have jointly signed a declaration dismissing the existence of a climate crisis and insisting that carbon dioxide is beneficial to Earth.
"There is no climate emergency," the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL) said in its World Climate Declaration (pdf), made public in August.
"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.
"A total of 1,609 scientists and professionals from around the world have signed the declaration, including 321 from the United States.
The coalition pointed out that Earth's climate has varied as long as it has existed, with the planet experiencing several cold and warm phases
. The Little Ice Age only ended as recently as 1850, they said.
"Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming," the declaration said. Warming is happening "far slower" than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools," the coalition said, adding that these models "exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases" and "ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
" For instance, even though climate alarmists characterize CO2 as environmentally-damaging, the coalition pointed out that the gas is "not a pollutant."Carbon dioxide is "essential" to all life on earth and is "favorable" for nature. Extra CO2 results in the growth of global plant biomass while also boosting the yields of crops worldwide.
CLINTEL also dismissed the narrative of global warming being linked to increased natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and droughts, stressing that there is "no statistical evidence" to support these claims.
"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," it said."To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today's climate discussion to which climate models are central.
Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. Should not we free ourselves from the naive belief in immature climate models?
"Climate Models and Sunlight Reflection Among the CLINTEL signatories are two Nobel laureates-physicists John Francis Clauser from the United States and Ivan Giaever, a Norwegian-American. Mr. Clauser has made a significant addition to climate models to dismiss the narrative of global warming: the visible light reflected by cumulus clouds which, on average, cover half of the earth.
So why did you post something that's completely untrue? The 1600 signatories are not scientists, as your first line claims. So why did you say it? When you write things that are completely wrong and so easy to disprove why should anyone believe that you have the ability to know right from wrong?
Only the most gullible people would swallow the claim that the signatories are scientists or professionals 'cause it's easy to prove it's bulldust. The second name I googled, Gordon Batt, does not claim to be a professional or a scientist, but he DOES try to sell fossil fuels.
The next name on the list is a retired lawyer - why on earth would anyone care what a retired lawyer thinks about a subject in which they have no qualifications or experience? Would you ask a scientist a question about law?
Go down a couple more spots and there's Geoff Brown, "organiser of a critical climate group". There's no evidence that he is a scientist or a professional, so why did you lie about him?
Then there's "Andrew E. Chapman, Expert on Rainfall and Flood Events". So why do you claim that he is a scientist or a professional, when there is no evidence whatsoever to back that up? Then there's Mike Elliott; there's info about him on the web and he is NOT a scientist or a professional.
So it's easy to prove that your claim that the 1600 were scientists and professionals is wrong. Why did you make the claim? Did you not check the facts or did you lie?
If it's on Truth Social you don't need to fact check it. They've hired the Babylon Bee as their professional fact checkers.
Compared to Snopes haha
www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/business/media/snopes-plagiarism-David-Mikkelson.html
Ha you got me. Noddy badge for you.
From now on I'll use the Babylon Bee for all my fact checking.
