500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

500 Scientists Write U.N.: ‘There Is No Climate Emergency’

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 17: People hold sign saying "climate emergency" while participating in a direct action with a protest group called Extinction Rebellion on April 17, 2019 in New York City. The activists are demanding governments declare a climate emergency to combat pollution. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D.

24 Sep 2019 Breitbart News

More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change. . . .

. . . . “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.” . . .

. . . “There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm,” they note. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy . . .

Of course a whole dimension of the global warming game has to do with political pretexts and only tangentially concerns the environment.

2 Likes

What is the aim of denying climate change?

1 Like

I don’t think the aim of the article was to deny climate change. Its claim is that there is no evidence that warming has caused the problems predicted by activists.

6 Likes

Regular_Atheist . . .

What is the aim of denying climate change?

I don’t know.

The climate has been changing day to day since the dawn of time.

I don’t understand why anyone would deny that either.

1 Like

No, the weather changes day to day.

Debate is always good.

1 Like

500 scientists, obviously in the pay of the fossil fuel companies, vs. a depressed, mildly autistic teenager? That’s a tough one.

The climate has been changing day to day too.

2 Likes

You are correct. Debate is good. But in much of the Media it’s only one sided. Those like the scientists in this article are never given a chance to be heard.

2 Likes

Look no further than the fact that the UK “ambassador” for the European Climate Declaration is none other than the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. This is a man who has no scientific credentials at all: he has a BA in classics and a postgraduate diploma in journalism. Some of his oddball behaviour includes:

  • He apparently believes that he contributed to the British victory in the Falklands War by convincing Margaret Thatcher to deploy biological weapons against the Argentinian troops. Not only is this completely untrue, but if it were true, he would be guilty of inciting the prime minister of the United Kingdom to commit a war crime.

  • He also claims to be the author of a 1,200-word essay on the legal basis for Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands that was read out once every 20 minutes on the BBC’s Argentinian service throughout the war. However, the BBC has never had an Argentinian service.

  • He actually did advise Margaret Thatcher that the best way of dealing with HIV/AIDS would be compulsory monthly blood tests for the entire population resulting in infected persons being compulsorily segregated from the rest of the population for life.

  • He also claims that he unsuccessfully urged Margaret Thatcher not to introduce the poll tax and John Major not to take the UK into membership of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

  • He claims to have been a scientific adviser to Margaret Thatcher, herself an actual scientist.

  • He claims to be invented a cure for two thirds of known diseases, including Graves’ disease, malaria, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, HIV, and herpes simplex VI and other viral, bacterial, and prion diseases.

  • He has stood for election to the House of Lords four times securing a total of 0 votes across all four ballots. This fact notwithstanding, he has repeatedly described himself as a member of the House of Lords (the upper house of legislature in the UK), including in correspondence with actual members of the US Senate. He has also repeatedly used the crowned portcullis badge, whose use is restricted by royal licence to actual members of the two houses of Parliament. The clerk of the parliaments eventually resorted to publishing an open letter to Lord Monckton warning him to stop claiming to be a member of the House of Lords.

  • He has claimed to be a laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize. He later claimed that this was a joke, despite having gone to the trouble of having a solid gold lapel pin made to commemorate the purported award.

  • He falsely claimed to have received £50,000 in damages from George Monbiot.

  • He was sacked as leader of UKIP in Scotland by Nigel Farage. Farage later accurately described Lord Monckton’s bigoted views about gay people “deeply offensive and fundamentally wrong.”

  • He pretended to be the Burmese delegate to the 2012 UN Climate Change Conference. Earlier he’d dressed up as an Arab.

  • He believes that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

2 Likes

Londoner (on a man who has a degree in journalism studies and invented a math puzzle) . . . .

Look no further than the fact that the UK “ambassador” for the European Climate Declaration . . .

Why can’t I look further? There is 500+ people here.
Why should I look no further?

You talked about his . . .

bigoted views about gay people . . .

Is this supposed to disqualify the position he is taking?

Does this mean when Joy Reid touts global warming it is OK to dismiss “climate change”?

Can we dismiss global warming because of Joy Reid’s bigotry against homosexuals?

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5776443850001/

How was this “letter” to the UN organized? Was it by e-mail, or did the individual scientists each print it out, sign it, put a stamp on it, and mail it? Was there an option for disagreeing with the letter? Or is the only option to agree or do nothing? Where is the list of signatories? What are their qualifications? How were those responses vetted?

So many questions, so few answers.

Is there any reason this “letter” should be taken seriously?

No. If there is not a full list of signatories, then there is no reason to even look at it.

1 Like

LeafByNiggle . . .

So many questions, so few answers. . .

So what?

People have been putting up names of scientists warning us of the same thing for years Leaf.

It has never mattered to you (guys) before.
Your guys just trash them personally and don’t deal with the objections.

Why should I think it would matter now?

I’ve never kept the names of the scientists secret. I’ve never relied on e-mail surveys. I’ve never relied on a list of scientists who did nothing more than check a box on a survey.

What I have relied on is research results published by the researchers themselves. It could take years of work to do the research, and months of time writing it up - with their own words, not some pre-written form letter. The credentials of the scientists in NASA who publish, for example, are there for everyone to see.

This claim by some group I’ve never heard of that they got 500 signatures means nothing unless you can answer the questions I raised.

Valid objections come with support. Statements without support need not be dealt with. They should be ignored.

LeafByNiggle . . . .

I’ve never kept the names of the scientists secret . . .

Maybe you would if you would get fired for telling the truth. Or just plain hassled.

Leaf . . . .

Valid objections come with support.

Statements without support need not be dealt with. They should be ignored.

Funny. I never saw you post that about Michael Mann and his “proprietary” data methodology.

Would you mind linking to one or two posts of yours where you are leveling this same criticism against Mann please?

That should be pretty easy Leaf. We’ve discussed Mann a lot on here.

I’ll look at your links on your criticism of Mann and proceed as indicated.

1 Like

If these 500 scientists are afraid of having their names known, then their signatures mean nothing.

That’s because the data methodology was not proprietary.

LeafByNiggle denying proprietary Michael Mann data methodology . . . .

That’s because the data methodology was not proprietary.

OK.

Email records dealing with his proprietary research then.

The Supreme Court rejected the group’s attempt to obtain the emails in April, saying retired Arlington Circuit Court Judge Paul Sheridan was right when he ruled that Mann’s emails were exempt from the law because they were proprietary records dealing with scholarly research

. . . The case involved a FOIA request for records at the University of Virginia
related to climate researcher Michael Mann.
Later in time, Mann himself intervened:

In September 2011, Professor Mann filed a motion to
intervene, arguing that the University could not sufficiently
protect his interests in privacy, academic freedom, and free
speech. The trial court granted his motion on November 1,
2011.

By 2013, the legal issue centered on the meaning of “proprietary”:

The parties primarily disputed
documents that may have been “proprietary.” The significance
of the dispute is highlighted by the use of the term in Code §
2.2-3705.4(4) which addresses certain public records that are
exempt from disclosure. To be exempt, the public record must
be:

Data, records or information of a
proprietary nature produced or collected
by or for faculty or staff of public
institutions of higher education, other
than the institutions’ financial or
administrative records, in the conduct of
or as a result of study or research on
medical, scientific, technical or
scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the
institution alone or in conjunction with a
governmental body or a private concern,
where such data, records or information
has not been publicly released, published,
copyrighted or patented.
Code § 2.2-3705.4(4).

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2014/04/virginia-supreme-court-gives-expansive.html

(This information is getting tougher and tougher to find. I used to be able to do Google searches and find all sorts of information on this type of thing. Even from the mainstream media! Now it just doesn’t come up or it gets buried.

Must be Google’s new censoring policy and the proverbial army of censors they have hired to bake-in their searches that we have been discussing the last year and a half.

If it gets any more obscure, I am going to call it: Google’s PGL (Google’s “Political Gas Lighting” policies-my opinion) the searches.

I’m still waiting for those links Leaf.

You are blatantly deflecting on a scientific/economic topic using logical fallacy,
using an ad hominem attack.

You need to be better than that.

1 Like

I think there are two kinds of ad hominem attack. One is the kind that Lord Monckton of Brenchley himself engages in, e.g. when he compared one of his opponents to an overcooked prawn. And then there is the kind of ad hominem attack where you point out that somebody has absolutely no credibility or integrity and that you therefore treat their claims with a high degree of scepticism. Lord Monckton has consistently lied throughout his career, from pretending to be a war criminal to pretending to have won the Nobel Peace Prize. He has a long track record of backing completely crazy scientific claims.

He doesn’t have a degree in journalism. He just took a diploma course. Lots of people do these journalism diplomas. It’s typically a short course of barely more than a few months covering basic skills for journalists such as shorthand and media law. His Eternity puzzle is clever, one has to give him credit for that, although I’m not sure how it qualifies him to understand climate science. Interesting to note, his second Eternity puzzle, which is much more difficult than the first one, was created with the help of the people who won the first Eternity puzzle competition, who were able to explain the flaws in the first puzzle.

I don’t see their names anywhere.

These people are happy to choose as their “ambassador” someone like Lord Monckton of Brenchley. One has to wonder why reputable, credible scientists would choose someone like Lord Monckton to be their ambassador. No reputable, credible scientist would want to have anything to do with Lord Monckton. You’d think that they’d have chosen someone like, oh, let’s say a fellow of the Royal Society, maybe an actual Nobel laureate, or an actual member of the House of Lords.

His bigotry is a side issue. Of course, people can be right about one thing and wrong about another unconnected matter. My point was that his bigotry is so extreme that Nigel Farage, not a man ever knowingly in the vanguard of political correctness, has publicly rebuked him for it. Again, the people who choose Lord Monckton to be their ambassador must be pretty desperate to resort to choosing as their spokesman somebody so bigoted that Nigel Farage has called him out for it.

Nothing wrong with that.

Explain again why I owe you some links?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.