climate change - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#15000234
https://theconversation.com/why-protest ... ric-115489

    Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric
    April 18, 2019 10.06am EDT

    I was invited to speak to a group of teenagers on climate strike in Oxford recently. Like many scientists, I support the strikes, but also find them disturbing. Which I’m sure is the idea.

    Today’s teenagers are absolutely right to be up in arms about climate change, and right that they need powerful images to grab people’s attention. Yet some of the slogans being bandied around are genuinely frightening: a colleague recently told me of her 11-year-old coming home in tears after being told that, because of climate change, human civilisation might not survive for her to have children.

    The problem is, as soon as scientists speak out against environmental slogans, our words are seized upon by a dwindling band of the usual suspects to dismiss the entire issue. So if I were addressing teenagers on strike, or young people involved in Extinction Rebellion and other groups, or indeed anyone who genuinely wants to understand what is going on, here’s what I’d say.

    My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading.

    As the relevant lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, I spent several days last October, literally under a spotlight, explaining to delegates of the world’s governments what we could, and could not, say about how close we are to that level of warming.

    Using the World Meteorological Organisation’s definition of global average surface temperature, and the late 19th century to represent its pre-industrial level (yes, all these definitions matter), we just passed 1°C and are warming at more than 0.2°C per decade, which would take us to 1.5°C around 2040.

    That said, these are only best estimates. We might already be at 1.2°C, and warming at 0.25°C per decade – well within the range of uncertainty. That would indeed get us to 1.5°C by 2030: 12 years from 2018.
    But an additional quarter of a degree of warming, more-or-less what has happened since the 1990s, is not going to feel like Armageddon to the vast majority of today’s striking teenagers (the striving taxpayers of 2030). And what will they think then?

    I say the majority, because there will be unfortunate exceptions. One of the most insidious myths about climate change is the pretence that we are all in it together. People ask me whether I’m kept awake at night by the prospect of five degrees of warming. I don’t think we’ll make it to five degrees. I’m far more worried about geopolitical breakdown as the injustices of climate change emerge as we steam from two to three degrees.

    So please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.

    Get angry, but for the right reasons

    What about the other interpretation of the IPCC’s 12 years: that we have 12 years to act? What our report said was, in scenarios with a one-in-two to two-in-three chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, emissions are reduced to around half their present level by 2030. That doesn’t mean we have 12 years to act: it means we have to act now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed.

    And if we don’t halve emissions by 2030, will we have lost the battle and just have to hunker down and survive? Of course not. The IPCC is clear that, even reducing emissions as fast as possible, we can barely keep temperatures below 1.5°C. So every year that goes by in which we aren’t reducing emissions is another 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ that we are expecting today’s teenagers to clean back out of the atmosphere in order to preserve warm water corals or Arctic ice.

    Assuming people will still want to feed themselves and not turn the world over to biofuels, then scrubbing CO₂ out of the atmosphere currently costs £150-£500 per tonne, plus the cost of permanent disposal. So those 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ represent a clean-up liability accumulating at a cool £8 trillion per year, which is more or less what the world currently spends on energy.

    So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

    If the parents reply, “don’t worry, dear, that’s what we pay taxes for”, youngsters should ask them who they voted for in the last election and whether spending their taxes on solving climate change featured prominently in that party’s manifesto.

    Get angry by all means, but get angry for the right reasons. Action is long overdue, but to a British public sunbathing in February, weird though that was, it doesn’t feel like an emergency. Middle-aged critics would much rather quibble over the scale of climate impacts (as if they have any right to say what climate young people should have to put up with) than talk about the clean-up bill.

    Climate change is not so much an emergency as a festering injustice. Your ancestors did not end slavery by declaring an emergency and dreaming up artificial boundaries on “tolerable” slave numbers. They called it out for what it was: a spectacularly profitable industry, the basis of much prosperity at the time, founded on a fundamental injustice. It’s time to do the same on climate change.

I found the line about the twisting of his words by “the dwindling band of usual suspects” to be amusing in this context.
By Sivad
#15000809
Uncertainty in climate projections

Uncertainty is an inherent part of science and is fundamental to scientific progress. In this video, scientists shed light on some ways in which uncertainties in climate projections can be assessed, managed, and communicated.

Featuring:
Judith Curry, Climate Forecast Applications Network (2:35)
Adrienne Wootten, U. Oklahoma (21:30)
Chengcheng Fei, Texas A&M U. (39:50)
William Cheung, U. British Columbia (52:56)
James Done, NCAR (1:10:34)
By Sivad
#15000812
CLIMATE HYSTERIA - Judith Curry on Climategate, Concensus and Bullying

Regarding the role that human greenhouse gas emissions play in driving the earth’s climate Dr. Curry concludes that: “On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.”

Regarding the politically contrived climate “consensus” arguments put forth by climate alarmists she concludes: “The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease – that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.”

Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honored climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate which clearly displayed the lack of transparency and openness present in mainstream climate science.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15000972
Pants-of-dog wrote:Does she have an argument, and if so, what is it?

More importantly, what evidence does she have?

She argues that there is no particular danger because of greenhouse warming caused by man. Her evidence seems to be the fact that in all of her years of studying it as a climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology that the evidence does not support a particular danger from man-made greenhouse gas. The invention of the carbon tax during the time Al Gore was hyping global warming seems to have been one of the driving forces behind it. What progressive doesn't love a new tax to gain more revenue for new socialist programs.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15005692
anasawad wrote:
So there is (sic) still people debating how climate change is a hoax ?


Millions of them, thousands of whom are climate scientists. But from NASA employees, this letter:

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realized that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
“We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
“We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”
The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/////////////////other signatures truncated////////////////////
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15005696
Sivad wrote:
but who cares what I think, the only thing that matters is what the experts agree on and how much confidence we can rationally have in the experts after a critical institutional analysis of the field of climate science.


"What the experts agree on" is irrelevant. "The experts" agreed:

1. That the sun revolved around the earth
2. That the universe was eternal and unchanging
3. That ether conducted light
4. That stomach acidity, not bacteria, caused ulcers
5. And on and on.

"Human powered heavier than air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, scientific expert, 1895, President of the Royal Society

"If we all went under the assumption that what is thought to be true was really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright, a bicycle mechanic

“The sun appears to be nothing else than a very eminent, large, and lucid planet…. Its similarity to the other globes of the solar system, with regard to its solidity, its atmosphere, and its diversified surface; the rotation upon its axis,and the fall of heavy bodies leads us on to suppose that it is most probably inhabited, like the rest of the planets, by beings whose organs are adapted to the peculiar circumstances of that vast globe.” – William Herschel (1738-1822) , discoverer of the planet Uranus, eminent observer and builder of telescopes

"We have been cocksure of many things that were not so." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"This isn't right, this isn't even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli

"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia."- Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy," -- Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil in 1859.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." -- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon," -- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us," -- Western Union internal memo, 1876

"The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys." - Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office, 1878.
... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men. - British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison's light bulb, 1878.


“The evidence for the existence of the luminiferous ether has accumulated as additional phenomena of light and other radiations have been discovered; and the properties of this medium, as deduced from the phenomena of light, have been found to be precisely those required to explain electromagnetic phenomena.” - James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883

"It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere."- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1895.

"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1889 (Edison often ridiculed the arguments of competitor George Westinghouse for AC power).

"Radio has no future." - Lord Kelvin, Scottish mathematician and physicist, former president of the Royal Society, 1897

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value," -- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, 1904

"That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced."- Scientific American, Jan. 2 edition, 1909

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
- H. M. Warner (1881-1958), founder of Warner Brothers, in 1927

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."- Albert Einstein, 1932.

"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper," - Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind."

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." - Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
- Thomas Watson (1874-1956), Chairman of IBM, 1943


"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances." -- Dr. Lee DeForest, Inventor of TV

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives." -- Admiral William Leahy, US Atomic Bomb Project, advising President Truman on atomic weaponry, 1944.

"Very interesting Whittle, my boy, but it will never work."- Cambridge Aeronautics Professor, when shown Frank Whittle's plan for the jet engine.
By Pants-of-dog
#15005699
Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679

    "NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

    "Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

    "If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15005716
Pants-of-dog wrote:Response from NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati to Letter on NASA Climate Studies

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679

    "NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

    "Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

    "If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."

If NASA does not draw conclusions about climate change, then it would appear that these claims by the politicians (Democrats) that we only have 12 years to save our earth is false.
User avatar
By MrWonderful
#15005958
Pants-of-dog wrote:As ling as we agree that the former NASA staff in your argument from authority did not address the actual science.


Do you think these many insiders made it all up? What did they state that was anti-science, in your considered opinion? NASA cheats and fudges the data and that's all right with you? In what world is that science?
By Pants-of-dog
#15005969
MrWonderful wrote:Do you think these many insiders made it all up?


No, I think they simply were duped by the people who did make it up.

What did they state that was anti-science, in your considered opinion?


I said that they failed to address the science, and they did,

Can you show a scientific error that these former NASA employees pointed out?

NASA cheats and fudges the data and that's all right with you? In what world is that science?


Did NASA cheat and fudge the data? When?
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15005971
MrWonderful wrote:Hindsite, your single avatar beneath your name reads when clicked "Posts equal or more then (sic) 4000). Other avatars have this same ignorant grammar. The website is controlled by people who do not speak English, evidently. Can't you help them? You have pull, and an avatar! I got nothin'.

That is my only award badge on this website. I think Godstud has 4 different awards and he is a Canadian living in Thailand, so perhaps you could ask him to help them with English grammar. I am not a forum moderator, so I have no pull at all. I probably have less pull than most on here, since I am a conservative Christian that supports President Trump.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15005981
I don't know what the badges mean @Hindsite, nor do I care. Grow up. You aren't oppressed, on this forum, and those "awards" mean absolutely nothing. Don't be a whiner like the new guy.

I can't help it if your English is poor and your grammar sucks. Maybe you should try attending school, or some kind of self-education.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15031977
As we, the USA and biggest carbon polluter on the planet and biggest war machine on the planet, fails to change our behavior under the Republicans and giant fossil fule fascists, more and more areas on the planet are becoming unlivable.

As the human population is squeezed from place like the Middle East, Phoenix Arizona, New Orleans, the Bahams, Puerto Rico, and even Montana (extended wild fire season and running out of water), where will the people go?

America needs to wake up and fast....Trump and the Republicans are dooming the planet!
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15031989
jimjam wrote:As we, the USA and biggest carbon polluter on the planet and biggest war machine on the planet, fails to change our behavior under the Republicans and giant fossil fule fascists, more and more areas on the planet are becoming unlivable.

As the human population is squeezed from place like the Middle East, Phoenix Arizona, New Orleans, the Bahams, Puerto Rico, and even Montana (extended wild fire season and running out of water), where will the people go?

America needs to wake up and fast....Trump and the Republicans are dooming the planet!

I don't see any need to rush. America has been doing a lot more than other countries. Fracking and Trump eliminating burdensome and job killing regulations and opening up Alaska for drilling has made us energy independent and wealthy. We certainly have better water than most of Europe and even if global warming melts all the ice, we will have no shortage of water to worry about. So I see no need to ruin our economy with crazy pie in the sky policies on climate change proposed by the left.


Climate Change Lies Exposed
SkyNews
June 18, 2019

Alan Jones and Peta Credlin expose the lies being promoted by the by the IPCC. Former IPCC Chair for the Sea Level committee Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner opens up too Alan Jones and completely spills the beans on how the world is being lied to by the UN and the climate change activists. Solar activity is currently the key contributor to any climate variation.

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

At this special event, geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate. He explains why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong—and why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change, not CO2 emissions. Stanford University physicist Elliott Bloom then comments.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15032054
Rebutting Alarmism at the Global Climate Action Summit | Part One

Scientific panel on the Global Climate Action Summit organized by the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute and held in Oakland, California, on September 13, 2018.

Rebutting Alarmism at the Global Climate Action Summit | Part 2
September 14, 2018
By Atlantis
#15032455
The deniers are scarred shitless, so their spin-master are getting ready for another campaign of disinformation.

Climate Science Deniers Planning European Misinformation Campaign, Leaked Documents Reveal

A coalition of climate science denial groups is gearing up for a European media blitz later this month, in an apparent bid to derail efforts to set an EU-wide “net zero” emissions target, documents obtained by DeSmog show.

Plans for a self-styled “European Declaration” include press conferences in Brussels, Rome and Oslo and a letter to be sent to leaders of EU and UN institutions, scheduled for mid-September.

The letter claims to have “400 independent Climate Scientists and Professionals” signed up so far.

Some notable signatories are part of a trans-Atlantic network of thinktanks pushing for environmental deregulation post-Brexit, and have a history of climate science denial. A number of former employees of the network’s member organisations are now staffers in Boris Johnson’s cabinet.

Titled ‘There is no climate emergency’, the group’s letter claims that current changes in the climate are “to be expected from the cyclic behaviour of the climate system” and that there is “no proof” that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming.

Another of the group’s “urgent messages” is to “strongly oppose” an EU carbon neutrality goal, a policy that was blocked by Poland and three other member states in June and is set to be discussed again at a European Council meeting in October.

Robert Brulle, Professor of Sociology at Drexel University and an expert on climate science denial, told DeSmog the campaign looked like a panicked response to recent high-profile efforts to highlight the climate crisis:

“The rise of the Extinction Rebellion movement, and the immense popularity and influence of Greta Thunberg, are having a significant impact on media coverage of climate change and concern about this issue. I would suspect that the aim of the campaign is to blunt the impact of these climate advocacy efforts.”

The talking points are stale and patently scientific nonsense. That isn't critical. The point would be to keep the ‘contested’ nature of climate change alive.”

Geoffrey Supran, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University who gave evidence to the European Parliament in March on oil giant ExxonMobil’s historic promotion of climate science denial, said he thought the move was an attempt to distract from the various upcoming efforts to increase action on climate change globally, such as the UN Climate Action Summit at the end of the month:

“These people are the rhetorical equivalent to the kid in the classroom screaming ‘Look at me! Look at me!’ They're desperate for attention.”

As always, they presumably hope to muddy the waters of public and political discourse on the climate crisis. To feed the echo chamber of sympathetic right-wing media and blogs, and to prey on naive and unsuspecting journalists who may be tempted to exercise false balance in their climate coverage.

Coordinated effort
The campaign is being spearheaded by a new Netherlands-based climate science denial group called the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), launched in April with funding from Niek Sandmann, a multimillionaire real estate developer.

The group’s co-founder Guus Berkhout, an engineering professor who began his career at Shell and set up the Delphi Consortium in the 1980s to develop new exploration methods for the oil and gas industry, told DeSmog that interest in the campaign had been “overwhelming”.

Berkhout said there were plans to hold press conferences in European capitals and that the effort was being “expanded to a World Climate Declaration”. He declined to offer further details or comment.

In addition to CLINTEL, the international organising group includes some well-known figures from the climate misinformation world, including:

Professor Richard Lindzen, former Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute(USA)
Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition (Australia)
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Speaker at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (Germany)
Professor Jeffrey Foss, Contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Canada)
Jim O’Brien, Chair and Co-founder of the Irish Climate Science Forum (Ireland)
Terence Dunleavy, Founding Chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand)
In an email seen by DeSmog, Berkhout explains that “signatures are being collected from persons who give a valuable contribution to the climate debate and are recognised as such”. He goes on to boast that there are “already a lot of great names on the list”.

Of the 400 signatories, only a handful have a background in climate science, with the majority being writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field.

In addition to the Cato Institute's Richard Lindzen, the list features numerous figures from US-based libertarian groups, including Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Charles Battig and Willie Soon from the Heartland Institute, which provides a total of 12 signatures alone. All three organisations are members of the Atlas Network, a Koch-funded international umbrella body of free-market groups.

UK affiliates of the network include the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance. A number of former employees of these groups are now working in Boris Johnson’s government.

Taxpayers’ Alliance founder Matthew Elliott is reportedly advising new Chancellor Sajid Javid, whose Conservative leadership campaign he ran, while former employee Chloe Westley has joined Boris Johnson’s Number 10 team. International Trade Secretary Liz Truss has appointed two special advisors from the IEA and ASI.

UK support
The UK’s principal climate science denial group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson in the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, is also well-represented in the campaign.

At least four members of its Academic Advisory Council feature in the letter’s signatories, and other contributors to the GWPF have also backed the “declaration”.

One is Northumbria University Professor Valentina Zharkova, who gave a lecture to the group last year claiming that climate change is caused by natural solar cycles. A paper Zharkova co-authored in June on the same subject was criticised for containing “basic errors” and an investigation into how it came to be published was launched by the scientific journal that printed it.

CLINTEL also has close ties to the GWPF. Berkhout wrote an essay for the UK group last year insisting that climate change was purely a natural phenomenon. And in February, the GWPF published an article by its Dutch counterpart that said: “Yes, the Earth is warming up. But that is business as usual. Earth’s history tells us that climate change has always happened.”

The following month GWPF director Benny Peiser spoke at a gathering in Amsterdam where CLINTEL announced its upcoming launch.

At that event, Berkhout admitted: “in this whole audience, apart from the organisation and a few brave ones, I don't see young people. So the first thing we are going to do is talk with the young people.” CLINTEL currently has a youth wing called “Young Clintel”.

The GWPF did not respond to a request for comment.

Other UK signatories include directors and former directors of lesser-known oil and gas companies, as well as five Fellows of the Geological Society, a professional body representing Earth scientists.

In addition to the EU “net zero” emissions target under consideration, planned “climate strike” protests and the upcoming UN Climate Action Summit, the media offensive may also, given its European focus, be timed to coincide with a crunch government meeting in Germany on how the country will meet its 2030 emissions target, set to take place on 20 September.

German signatories to the letter include a spokesperson for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), which a Der Spiegel investigation earlier this year found had been working closely with the insurgent, far-right Alternative for Germany party to campaign against action on climate change.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15032504
Atlantis wrote:The deniers are scarred shitless, so their spin-master are getting ready for another campaign of disinformation.

Good for them. It must be done to counter the lies and misrepresentations from the climate change alarmist.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]

Based on what? On simple economics. and in t[…]