Just a reminder for mark.

[mark francis]

No exactly the opposite.
1979????
44 years ago? That's about as relevant as saying 2000 years ago god said it. Fuck off.

What? Modern GW propagandists are right to claim hundreds of years of global warming is a fact even though 50 years ago evidence showed the earth was cooling?

 

[Boris Norris]

What? Modern GW propagandists are right to claim hundreds of years of global warming is a fact even though 50 years ago evidence showed the earth was cooling?

What you called evidence was not peer reviewed but cherry picked by unqualified anonymous sources and you expect real people to believe it??
You oppose global warming because Trump said it was a hoax, so did the GOP and your hideous hasn't said anything about it at all.

You're not coming from a source of information that blended with international professionals.

If course it's one that sides with religion, ignorance and plain stupidity. Sound familiar?

 

[mark francis]

What you called evidence was not peer reviewed but cherry picked by unqualified anonymous sources and you expect real people to believe it??
You oppose global warming because Trump said it was a hoax, so did the GOP and your hideous hasn't said anything about it at all.

You're not coming from a source of information that blended with international professionals.

If course it's one that sides with religion, ignorance and plain stupidity. Sound familiar?

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations
By Mark J. Perry

October 01, 2019

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

 

[Boris Norris]

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations.

The total amount of scientists who believe in climate change us 97 % all over the world. Do your own calculations about what that % your die hard dementia ridden rag tag bunch of nothings who want glory compared to the total number who disagree with them. You've got nothing.
There's over 8 million scientists in the world.

By Mark J. Perry

October 01, 2019

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers

Volunteers? Highly qualified.

comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.”

But none qualified to assess climate change. Yep. Got it.

On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate.

If they were professionals in that field, they are now liars.

and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose..

599 out if 8 million friends if the earth hippie drug ridden junkies are now advising the United nations??? Are you kidding me?

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models.

That begs the questions where is there models to prove otherwise. Did you think if that Marky?

Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.

What electrical energy?
If religion would allow condoms there wouldn't be so much poverty.

We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

And no doubt with the intellectual giants in that mob the United nations would have melted in their seats, shivering with fear from threats by these nutters.

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

CO2 is not harmful to the atmosphere? What a load of shit. Tell that to those people in Greece and Canada and Australia and California.

5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.

Obviously supported by nothing.

6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

Climate policy is not obliged to respect anything. It is what it is and science will advise govts if their findings and it's up to them. Crackers like those retired loopies should be in a home.

MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists.

You mean scientists who have evidence it's happening

For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence.

No evidence. See that. Where's your 500 old fools now.

were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

Exactly. These wannabe crackpots are slamming their conspiracy theories against every wall trying to make it stick.
Smart people flick it through to the keeper every time.

 

[mark francis]

The total amount of scientists who believe in climate change us 97 % all over the world.

Sadly, that is a lie perpetrated by liars either with a bent purpose or suffering from an inexcusable ignorance.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong (forbes.com)
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Alex Epstein

Jan 6, 2015,02:12pm EST

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.​

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

 

[Boris Norris]

Sadly, that is a lie perpetrated by liars either with a bent purpose or suffering from an inexcusable ignorance.

Read this smart arse. This is our taxes at work but you choose to believe so E religious nutters who know nothing but propaganda.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

.

Sadly, that is a lie perpetrated by liars either with a bent purpose or suffering from an inexcusable ignorance.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong (forbes.com)
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Alex Epstein.

Who is Alex Epstein? What recognition has he ever achieved over and above NASA etc? He's a nothing.

Jan 6, 2015,02:12pm EST

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Oops. You must have missed that but. They talk about facts and here's a good example. If the ice us melting at a certain rate and this is physical evidence, how can two groups witness the same information where 97% say one thing and 500 has been godbotherers have a completely opposite answer after seeing same evidence? Ever thought of that you idiot.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.​

That's true because they didn't say that. They said climate change is real and emissions are what is accelerating it. No mention if stopping the use of oil.
you're article is misleading.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

Really? I'll challenge that forever.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong (forbes.com)
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Alex Epstein

Jan 6, 2015,02:12pm EST

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.​

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

 

[mark francis]

Read this smart arse. This is our taxes at work but you choose to believe so E religious nutters who know nothing but propaganda.

Do scientists agree on climate change? – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.

climate.nasa.gov

I doubt that 97% of climate experts agree that the earth will be destroyed in 12 years unless trillions of new dollars in spending is issued immediately. But if they do, they are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves for rubber stamping bad reports from researchers big on an agenda but small on credible facts and reasonable deductions.

 

[Boris Norris]

I doubt that 97% of climate experts agree that the earth will be destroyed in 12 years unless trillions of new dollars in spending is issued immediately.

I agree but the spending issue is not a science thing. They just discover things and govts make those decisions.

But if they do, they are wrong and should be ashamed of themselves for rubber stamping bad reports from researchers big on an agenda but small on credible facts and reasonable deductions.

That also applies to the likes if you who continually say things that a blatantly untrue then disappear when proven wrong. If the climate does change, you should be apologising for not helping to do something.
That aside, your reply us a very poor excuse for not researching anything.

View attachment 5824

 

[mark francis]

I agree but the spending issue is not a science thing. They just discover things and govts make those decisions.

That also applies to the likes if you who continually say things that a blatantly untrue then disappear when proven wrong. If the climate does change, you should be apologising for not helping to do something.
That aside, your reply us a very poor excuse for not researching anything.

Climate change is all hype supported by a failure rate of near 100% in predictions based upon the bad assumptions.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

 

[Boris Norris]

Climate change is all hype supported by a failure rate of near 100% in predictions based upon the bad assumptions.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute (cei.org)

Sorry. You're the dickhead and unwilling to fact check the shit you post.

 

[mark francis]

Sorry. You're the dickhead and unwilling to fact check the shit you post.

 

[Boris Norris]

View attachment 5825

WTF does that prove?
You're becoming delirious as well as delusional.

 

[mark francis]

WTF does that prove?
You're becoming delirious as well as delusional.

It proves experts rarely agree on everything, especially global warming/cooling.

 

[Boris Norris]

It proves experts rarely agree on everything, especially global warming/cooling.

If 97% of 8 million agree on something but 500 people don't, doesn't it appear to you that you could be supporting the wrong cause? Of course not because Trump and god said they are all wrong.

You opinion on the subject is based purely in Trump's, and others, ignorance and dismissal of experts evidence and because it's not in the Bible it can't be true. .
Ironically, you believe there was a world wide flood covering mt Everest with not a waiver of that believe because god said it.
But we know it didn't happen because there's no evidence and the logistics are impossible.

Sometime in the future you will realise how gullible you gave been but knowing the level of your intelligence it's unlikely it would improve to that of a thinker.

 

[mark francis]

If 97% of 8 million agree on something but 500 people don't, doesn't it appear to you that you could be supporting the wrong cause? Of course not because Trump and god said they are all wrong.

I don't blindly believe what the majority mob or some chosen leader thinks is true, I research the facts and draw my own independent conclusions.