Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements

on

Negative Climate Change (NCC)




Statements Update




A. Statements (To # 11 - 23/10/6)


Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Statement # 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Statement # 11

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

SupportReason

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.
[Chart – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5]
The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

Video [The Secretary is unsure] – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5

[Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements
on
Negative Climate Change

Statement 11 (Proposed)

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support Reason

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.






The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

Processing

During the one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge, no CT'er came forward with a Challenge.

Conclusion

Statement 11 is generally accepted. It joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

---

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements
on
Negative Climate Change

Statement 11 (Proposed)

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support Reason

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.






The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

Processing

6/7days of the one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge have now passed without any Challenge being launched yet; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Should there not be 2 Challenges by the deadline, Statement 11 will be generally accepted.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)



Weekly Overview

A. Weekly Stats:

Week # 39 (23/9/25 – 10/1, 2023 [7 days])

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(39 wks.)___________

........38....................35.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (39 wks.)__________________

.............1......................2.......................3...........................5.

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running close to both the prior week and the 2023 average so far.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of negative climate change of almost 40 CT'ers daily (Unless some come more than once per day).

All sides of the issue are free to post material they claim to be in support (Though this thread was started by an Anthropogenicist). CT'ers are getting a good sampling of all that is out there. You decide!

B.The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The core issue:

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 8 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) before then is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, not just “natural” warming, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

C. The Naturalist Position -Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.

D. Negative Climate Change: The “Conversation” Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate Statements on climate change, giving Support Reasons, that will gain general acceptance....we are using "The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)".

Under TCFP we have adopted in this thread, a proposed statement is given the benefit of the doubt that it is "generally accepted" when originally proposed. If not challenged during one week, then the Statement joins the other generally accepted Statements, without any discussion, nor Secretary ruling.

Should a proposed Statement be challenged, with reasons, then all are free to post "Supplementary Support" or "Supplementary Challenge".

As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her Challenge, to confirm that s/he is not the only challenger.

The discussion will generally have one week to run from the date of the posting of the Proposed Statement.

The goal is not “unanimity”, though that would be nice. Neither is the goal “consensus”. We only seek a substantial majority for a Statement to be “generally accepted”.

E. CT'ers' (Of all stripes) Immediate Tasks

a. Statement/Revised Statement/Challenge

Propose your idea for the majority to consider. You can also just post a Supplementary Support for a Statement, or, a Supplementary Challenge.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements in layperson's terms"!

b. Negative Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses”. It seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part II; Part I above]

B. Rejected Statements (Not “generally accepted” within the CT'er group)

Statement A

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

I think statement A is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Statement # 6 now is:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Proposed Statement A is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Statement A! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree that Statement A is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Statement B

There is no climate emergency.

Opposition Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

"...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

Opposition Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

"There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

What other definition is there of an "emergency".

The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

Opposition Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

"Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."

[Secretary Note: These Statements have been found, within their group, to be “Generally Accepted” , or not, by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players [Representing the Spectrum re partisan politics and opinion on the issue], on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum):

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements

on

Negative Climate Change (NCC)




Statements Update

A. Statements (To # 11 - 23/10/6)


Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Statement # 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support Reasons

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.
[Chart – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5]
The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.

Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

Video [The Secretary is unsure] – Post # 1800 – 23/10/5

Processing

There shall be one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

[Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements
on
Negative Climate Change

Statement 11 (Proposed)

The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.






The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

Video [I think] - Post # 1800 - 23/10/5

Processing

There shall be one week for a Revision Challenge and/or an Opposition Challenge; Deadline: Friday, Oct. 13 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Thursday 10.05.23 We're nearly two weeks into fall, but many US cities won't be able to bask in the beauty of colder "sweater weather" for a while. New data shows that 2023 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history after an unseasonably warm September shattered heat records. Bob A (As Participant)

getting quite chilly here in the prairies... already missing the short Canadian summer... not enough global warming, I guess...

[Sid Belzberg]

Proposed Statement 11 The average rate of temperature increase from 1695-2023 is .5 degrees per 100 years. 50% of this time was pre-industrial emissions of CO2.

Support

As expected, post-1850, the rise in CO2 emissions had no impact on the temperature whatsoever! The Hadcet dataset is a great model for climate change as the heart of the Industrial Revolution and industrial CO2 emissions was in the UK that began in 1850.
The average rate over a century is climate change, and variations year over year are the weather! The modern media attempts to confuse the two.






The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the longest continuously measured thermometer-based regional temperature dataset in the world, going back more than 350 years. This record began in 1659, in the depths of the Little Ice Age (1250 – 1800) which was marked by some of the coldest temperatures in nearly 8,000 years. The period of the late 17th century and early 18th century was a horrifically cold period known as the Maunder Minimum. Thankfully, the current warming trend we are in began in the year 1695. The next 40 years had more than twice the rate of warming as we experienced in the 20th century. The first half of this 300-plus year warming had about the same amount of temperature rise as the latter half and was entirely naturally driven. The natural forces driving temperature changes for the first 200 years of this temperature history did not cease functioning in the 20th century.


Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342, https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs

CO2: Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 – 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): , Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global CO2 emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2010

Source(s): Temp: Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England Temperature Series, 1772 – 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317–342

[Bob Armstrong]

Thursday 10.05.23 We're nearly two weeks into fall, but many US cities won't be able to bask in the beauty of colder "sweater weather" for a while. New data shows that 2023 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history after an unseasonably warm September shattered heat records. Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change

[Part II; Part I above]

B. Rejected Statements (Not “generally accepted” within the CT'er group)

Statement A

Additional carbon beyond 400-450 PPM where we are today (est) has no impact on the climate as all heat is absorbed in the first 400 PPM.

Opposition Challenge 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1720 - 23/8/28

I think statement A is outrageous.

If true, it would give the fossil fuel industry unlimited licence to burn everything, because hey "would have no impact on the climate".
As the church lady says, "how convenient".

I do follow climate updates elsewhere, and I don't see any mention of support for statement #10. I know Sid has cited a recent study by a couple of scientists, so if it does gain credibility elsewhere, I will let you know.

So instead of just letting statement #10 stand as is, I think some notation that it is not considered generally accepted as of now.

Opposition Challenge 2 - Bob Armstrong (As Participant) - Post # 1732 - 23/8/31

Statement # 6 now is:

Between 600 million and 400 million years ago, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was quite high (over 600 ppm). Between 200 million and 150 million years ago, it had dropped to over 300 ppm. and remained there. But by 2022, almost 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had again spiked. "Carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2022 at 421 parts per million in May, pushing the atmosphere further into territory not seen for millions of years, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography offsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today. "
[ Note: The significance of CO2 as a factor in negative climate change is hotly debated. Whether CO2 production from the time of the Industrial Revolution is relevant is also hotly debated. These await further Statements, if any generally accepted Statements are possible.]

Proposed Statement A is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Statement A! Recently moving into the 400 PPM range is a big spike in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. Many scientists see the spike as due to anthropogenic activity (The Industrial Revolution). And they clearly link the increase in CO2 to the increase in temperature (Part of the Non-Porous Greenhouse Gas Canopy argument):

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/ca...ustrial-levels

So CO2 DOES have an impact on the climate as it is one of the causes of the rising heat level on Earth.

I agree that Statement A is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Statement B

There is no climate emergency.

Opposition Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

"...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

Opposition Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

"There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

What other definition is there of an "emergency".

The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

Opposition Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

"Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."

[Secretary Note:These Statements have been found, within their group, to be “Generally Accepted” , or not, by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players [Representing the Spectrum re partisan politics and opinion on the issue], on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics Forum):

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...ss-discussion- board/217060-anthropogenic-negative-climate-change-ancc).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (NCC)

10 Generally Accepted Statements

(To 23/10/5)



A. Statements


Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change. It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth.

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

Statement # 3

“The term “Record-Breaking” is sometimes loosely/wrongly used in the Main Stream Media re Earth's currently rising temperature. Cities across the globe may have unique geographic and meteorological characteristics that determine current temperature variations. Fact checking may be necessary.”

Statement # 4:

Currently rising air/atmospheric temperature of Earth is a problem for humanity.

Statement # 5

Since the year 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850], which is the earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

Statement # 6

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.

Statement # 7

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.

Statement # 8

If farming has an effect on global negative climate change (Whether it does will be dealt with in another Statement, if possible), then any negative effect will be mitigated to some extent by the farming industry becoming “sustainable”. Sustainable agriculture is the efficient production of safe, high-quality agricultural product, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of the farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species.(Definition by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs: https://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/15-023.htm").

Statement # 9

The two seminal papers by distinguished atmospheric physicists, William Happer of the Princeton University Department of Physics and William A. van Wijngaarden of the York University, Canada, Department of Physics and Astronomy prove that Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions have no statistically meaningful effect on warming hence farming does not have anything to do with climate change.

Support Reasons: Sid Belzberg – CT/NCC Post # 1646 – 23/8/15

Statement # 10

Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant. CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, without it, we would be a dead planet.

Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg

Greening of the Earth and its drivers

Abstract

Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services^1,2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO₂ fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO₂ fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

32 authors from 24 institutions in 8 countries has revealed that an analysis of satellite data shows that there has been a 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years between 1986 and 2016. 70% of this increase is attributed to CO2 in the air and that vegetation has increased every year from 1982 to 2009. The increase amounts to the equivalent of two landmasses the size of the United States in new green vegetation.

The “greening” is most impactful in arid regions where they have high temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. This helps plants to retain more water during transpiration which will help during dry spells and make the plants less “water-stressed.” The increased CO2 results in higher crop yields, which equates to more food and thriving wildlife. The result has been a $3 trillion increase in crop yields over the last 30 years.

[Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change Statements

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate emergency.

Supporting Reasons

“There is No Climate Emergency,” says Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser

BY PATRICIA HARRITY ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2023 • ( 12 COMMENTS )

John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on quantum mechanics, has decided to sign the World Climate Declaration of Clintel with its central message “There is no climate emergency”.

Clauser is the second Nobel Laureate to sign the declaration, Dr. Ivar Giaever was the first. The number of scientists and experts signing the World Climate Declaration is growing rapidly.
Fear Mongering


Guus Berkhout, President of Clintel says “In the past decades the public has been flooded with fear-mongering stories, telling them that global temperatures will rise to catastrophically high levels.

Climate activists claim that the cause of all this impending doom is the increasing amount of CO₂ produced by human activities. The proposed solution is the so-called net-zero emission policy, aimed at lowering human net CO₂-emissions to the levels of the pre-industrial era of the late 1700s.

Those activists also claim that people should panic, and that time is running out: “Be aware that it is five minutes to midnight, we must act without delay!” Many thousands of scientists disagree; “Already 1774 are Clintel signatories.” (Source)
A Dangerous Corruption of Science


Now Clauser has publicly distanced himself from climate alarmism and this year he also joined the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition. In the announcement by the CO2 Coalition, Clauser was quoted in the following way:

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience.

In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists. In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis.

There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.”

IPCC is spreading dangerous misinformation

In July Clauser gave a talk at the event Quantum Korea 2023. He warned the audience about the growing amount of pseudoscience and misinformation.

“Now I am not alone in observing the dangerous proliferation of pseudoscience. Recently, The Nobel Foundation has formed a new panel to address the issue called the International Panel on Information Environment. They plan to model it after the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

I think personally that they are making a big mistake in that effort because in my opinion the IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation. What I’m about to recommend is in furtherance of that, of the aims of that panel. […]

I have a second elephant in the room that I have recently discovered regarding climate change. I believe that climate change is not a crisis. […]

Beware. If you’re doing good science, it may lead you into politically incorrect areas. If you’re a good scientist, you will follow them. I have several I won’t have time to discuss, but I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

As Clintel demonstrated in its recent book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, the IPCC indeed made serious errors in its latest report. Shortly after his talk in Korea the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cancelled a scheduled talk by Clauser about climate models. In an interview with the Epoch Times, Clauser said with respect to climate science: “We are totally awash in pseudoscience”.

Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of geophysics at the TU Delft and president of Clintel, very much welcomes Professor Clauser to the Clintel Community.

“It’s very encouraging when high-profile scientists such as Dr Clauser are willing to speak out about the glaring corruption of science by the climate establishment. We aim to make Clintel a full-fledged counterpart of the IPCC. The more excellent scientists in the Clintel network, the stronger our position in the debate with the IPCC as well as the leaders of supranational policy organisations.”

The Clintel World Climate Declaration was published in 2019, the year Clintel was founded. The strength of the declaration is its accessibility and its powerful message: there is no climate crisis. This holds true regardless of whether you believe in a large or small contribution of CO2 to the warming in the past 150 years. Scientists and experts who want to sign the declaration can submit their request here.

Source Clintel World Climate Declaration

A great way to learn more about the life and work of Dr. Clauser is to watch this Nobel Prize interview with him:


Supplementary Support Reasons - Sid Belzberg (Proposer) - Post # 1774-5 - 23/10/3

Challenge # 1 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1788 - 23/10/2

"...it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

Court cases are now underway and winning to protect the environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPXY..._channel=MSNBC

Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?"

Challenge # 2 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1791 - 23/10/3

"There IS a "climate emergency". Tons of material now exists in the public domain to this effect. Governments and private organizations (World Economic Forum) are sounding the alert. We are seeing the effects of climate change across the globe: wildfires; floods; landslides; rising sea levels; melting polar caps; etc. It is now well-accepted, both inside this group, and in the world at large, that it is likely the human species will be unable to adapt to this new increasingly hostile environment, and will go extinct.

What other definition is there of an "emergency".

The fact of this very thread shows that there is NO general acceptance within this group (This is Post # 1,791!! and BOTH sides are posting their little hearts out).......there IS raging controversy

This Statement is both wrong, and not generally accepted by this group."

Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

"Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Processing

Within one week, not one CT'er came forward to support the statement. And three CT'ers challenged the proposed Statement # 11.

Conclusion

Proposed Statement # 11 is NOT "generally accepted". The Statement will be removed from the List of Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Part 2

---

Who is John Sullivan? Credentials/Resumé:

I am a professionally qualified electrical power engineer, a data architect, and a business/management consultant who has spent almost my entire career in the energy industry.

I began as a sponsored graduate trainee with what later became a “big six” UK energy energy company. After qualifying, I spent the early part of my professional life as a network planning engineer, working on the design of the distribution network at 11kV and below.

In my late twenties, the growth in IT capabilities was beginning to transform the business landscape and I transferred into the newly formed IT department as a business expert guiding the business side of new IT projects. I was instrumental in many projects on both the engineering (network) and supply (retail customer service, metering and billing) sides of the business.

In my mid-thirties, I left my corporate role and co-founded an energy industry consultancy with my long-term business partner. I remained in this role for the rest of my career, split broadly into two parts.

Before and after the millennium, I operated as a technical business consultant, working mostly overseas (Europe, North America, Republic of Georgia, West Africa and Ukraine) at director/CEO level supporting business acquisitions, organisation changes, process improvements, major project financing, management recruitment / development initiatives, and more.

Circumstances resulted in a subsequent return to UK based operations, where I became closely engaged for the first time in the wholesale markets side of the industry for several years, alongside business and industrial retail markets, Smart Metering, and a steady base load of network engineering projects, particularly in asset management for transmission and distribution networks. Aside from energy storage, other than a brief period involved in water management for hydro power in West Africa, I have direct and detailed technical experience in every aspect of the power industry, and of business/IT project management.


I have worked with many of the major UK, European and global power companies, including: SSE, EDF, RWE, ESB (Ireland) and AES (former Soviet Union and Africa). My broad, unparalleled experience of the industry puts me in a rare, possibly unique, position to assess the holistic challenges of Net Zero across the entire power industry.

I know what I’m talking about, and I know Net Zero is not possible.

As an engineer at heart, I believe passionately in technological progress, and enabling technical breakthroughs are possible at any time; for example in energy storage, ambient temperature super-conductivity, carbon capture and more. But as a project professional, I also know that - even if miraculous technical breakthroughs are achieved - the logistics of Net Zero are astronomically more complex than anything humanity has ever attempted to date.

As someone who has been instrumental in re-engineering the business model of entire countries’ power sectors, I certainly do not lack brave ambition - if Net Zero were achievable (and necessary) I would be first to put my shoulder to the wheel.

But HS2 shows the folly of naïve hubris in the hands of disingenuous amateurs and unaccountable bureaucrats. The disaster that awaits if the Net Zero juggernaut is not brought to an early halt will dwarf anything that HS2 has ‘achieved’.

Facts Matter is a reader-supported publication.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/...etter-to-rishi

[Sid Belzberg]

Negative Climate Change Statements

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate emergency.

Challenge # 3 - Pargat Perrer - Post # 1792 - 23/10/3

"Just this past week, New York City suffered floods due to precipitation levels not seen in a single day since 1948. That's 75 bleeping years. The extent of the widespread damages is still being worked out.

Guess what that is going to do to property insurance rates in New York City?

Property Insurance companies are the canary in the coal mine; if you want to know whether we are in a climate emergency, follow the falling fortunes of the biggest property insurers and of their customers. Never mind what CO2 levels might have been hundreds of thousands of years ago."

Processing
6 of the 7 days of the one week for Revision and/or Opposition Challenges have now passed; deadline: Wed., Oct. 4 @ 11:59 PM EDT.
Three Challenges have been launched so far.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Dear Bob,
One thing is for sure your claim of a climate emergency is "generally accepted" is not true by any stretch of the imagination in the Uk. Thank G-d Western Civilization has woken up to the leftist eco-terrorists aka the useful morons of the WEF, that you're stupid enough to have fallen for hook, line, and sinker and devoted your entire life to being a useful idiot. How ironic that a self-proclaimed Marxist sheepishly bleats the propaganda that supports the agenda of the wealthiest people in the world aka the WEF elite. You claim they are "benevolent" or view themselves that way. Such an ignorant clown you are!

I see you have your nasty little idiotic troll coming to your rescue trying to claim that a storm, by his own words, is not a record is evidence of a climate emergency.


"Your credibility is in tatters, Prime Minister. No one believes you".

1)
Net Zero: An Open Letter to Rishi Sunak

A direct appeal to the UK Prime Minister to end this dystopian madness



Dear Mr Sunak

I write to you as a 40 year veteran of the power industry, with unparalleled professional experience in all areas of the energy sector both in the UK and globally. I provide further details of my credentials at the end of this letter.

As you prepare for your keynote speech at the Conservative Party Conference, you will be acutely aware that your Party is fractured along multiple lines, and that support for you from both the grass-roots party membership and the public at large is, to put it mildly, sub-optimal.

The nature of your ascent to the party leadership and hence to Prime Minister of the UK lacked proper democratic legitimacy. As a result, you began your premiership at a monumental disadvantage, made worse by the prevailing geopolitical circumstances - the aftermath of the Covid omni-shambles, the war in Ukraine, out-of-control immigration and, of course, the hysteria around climate change and the cult of Net Zero, which you belatedly appear to have noticed is a disaster in the making.

Your recent tinkering with the timetable for banning the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, together with some minor adjustments to grant arrangements for heat pumps and implementation details of the gas boiler ban, show that you and/or your advisers know that the objective of UK Net Zero by 2050 is a fantasy. And yet…

You continue to insist publicly that your overall goal is a “pragmatic” Net Zero by 2050. You have provided no details of how you think this can be achieved (it can’t). You continue to deceive the British public about the true costs - £2.5 Trillion at 2022 prices by my own estimate. Approximately £90,000 per household, not the £10-15,000 per household you claimed in your press conference a couple of weeks ago. You have given no serious indication that you intend to unwind any of the legislation that mandates both the 2050 end goal or interim 5 yearly carbon budget obligations. You have taken no action to curtail the far-left alarmist propaganda from the Climate Change Committee, far less disband this dystopian quango entirely. And you have appointed Claire Coutinho - a political rookie with no experience of the energy industry - as Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Your credibility is in tatters Prime Minister. No one believes you



You have one final chance to regain the trust of the British people. To do so, you must - as I am sure, somewhere deep down, you realise - address all of the issues outlined above:

• Extract the UK from the madness of the escalating proxy war in Ukraine. I worked in Ukraine, with Kyivoblenergo, the electric power company serving the Kyiv Oblast. I was in Kyiv in the midst (literally) of the Orange Revolution in 2004/5. I also worked previously in Tbilisi, Georgia, with Telasi, the power company serving Tbilisi.
  
  I know more than most about the separatist movements in the Donbass region, South Ossetia and Abkhazia - which both Putin’s Russia and the West have tried to influence and politically exploit over the years. I am no Putin apologist; but I know that your government’s approach in Ukraine is insane.
• Stop the boats and take control of immigration more broadly. The British people have had enough of excuses and word salad. Only action is acceptable now, and that starts with withdrawal from the ECHR.
• Come clean with the British people on the disastrous mistakes that were made in the farcical response to Covid - a mostly harmless virus that could and should have been largely ignored by any sane government and “public health” establishment.

And, of course:

• Consign Net Zero to the dustbin of history.

Net Zero is unachievable, by 2050 or by any date this century. In theory, a programme to achieve Net Zero would cost the UK the astronomical sum of £2.5 Trillion, doubling our national debt in the process. In practice however - as an undertaking at least 2 orders of magnitude (100x) more complex that the HS2 farce - it is completely undeliverable. At present, we do not even have the core of a credible plan.

You either know this, or you have been deceived by disingenuous, ideologically left-wing, advisers and the mainstream media narrative - just as you were deceived about the threat from Covid, just as you were deceived about the practicality and costs of HS2, and just as you have been deceived on Ukraine.

So, finally, why would someone who has been so deceived on (or perhaps complicit in?) so many scientific and political frauds believe for a moment that they have not been deceived on the greatest issue of them all - that of civilisation-threatening anthropological climate change?

I have news for you Prime Minister. There is no “climate emergency”. The entire thing is a fiction cooked up long ago by Long March neo-Marxists in order to destabilise society, so as to free the path to “proper communism this time”. It was based on a kernel of truth - that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas - but there is, and has never been, any genuine evidence either that CO₂ is the principal driver of climate or that a small increase in global temperature or that a small increase in global temperature will be exclusively (or even primarily) a bad thing.

In a very real sense, all of today’s key issues are closely linked to the climate scam. Uncontrolled immigration is tolerated, even encouraged, because it makes everyone fearful of hundreds of millions of potential (fictitious) climate refugees. The war in Ukraine is tolerated, even encouraged, because it contributes to high natural gas prices and the deception that renewable energy is both cheap and necessary for energy security. Because the entire thing is underpinned by neo-Marxist ideology, all the “oppressed victim” cults and meaningless slogans (BLM, trans rights, “leave no one behind”, “no one is safe until everyone is safe”, etc.) are due, at root, to the same issue.

Over the past 50 years, the climate alarmist madness has of course developed a momentum all its own, aided at every step by funding from autocratic globalist oligarchs with delusions of philanthropic legacies. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with good intentions.

In conclusion, not only is Net Zero impossible to achieve, it is completely unnecessary. All you need to do to save your premiership, your legacy, and the socio-economic future of the UK, is accept this simple truth. The economy will flourish, society will blossom, and you will be remembered as the greatest peace-time Prime Minister - perhaps the greatest ever Prime Minister - that the UK has had.

It’s in your own hands Mr Sunak. The door is open, all you have to do is walk through it.

Yours Sincerely,

John Sullivan.