Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

[Pargat Perrer]

Negative Climate Change Statements

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate 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.

Bob A (As Participant)

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change Statements

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate 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.

Bob A (As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change Statements

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate emergency.

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

"Bob A., I thought you already ruled this one obviously wrong."

Response

I posted that this Statement had been brought forward in bad faith - clearly there can be no general acceptance in this group. And I said I could rule it is not processable.

BUT I then said that our "The Conversation Format Protocol" maybe needed to be tested with this case, to see if it could work properly.

So I then posted it as a normally processed Statement.

I am sorry for any confusion, and am pleased that a Challenge from the group has now come forward......this shows our process is working.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

Bob A., I thought you already ruled this one obviously wrong.

Nevertheless, 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"?

Besides, where is the definition of "emergency"?

As has been stated by the WEF and its partner the UN Agenda 2030 implies an "emergency". Court case are not relevant to "generally accepted" unless you
have a census of the outcome of all court cases where a "climate "emergency" is disputed as opposed to protecting the environment.

Nevertheless, it is not generally accepted under any reasonable definition of generally accepted.

Bullshit! Fewer and fewer people are fooled.


More Americans are pessimistic about the impact they can have on climate change compared with three years ago.


Most people are taking a variety of steps that reduce their climate impact, but they are often more motivated by finances than environmental concerns.

TOPLINE RESULTS
PUBLIC USE FILES
METHODOLOGY
August 15, 2022

Only about half of Americans think their actions influence climate change, a decline from the two-thirds who said the same three years ago. They are also slightly less concerned about the effects of climate change on them personally or to say individuals have much responsibility to address climate change compared to 2019.

Most Americans continue to believe that climate change is happening and caused, at least in part, by human activities. Among those who believe climate change is happening, 70% acknowledge that individuals need to make lifestyle changes to fight climate change, and most are taking a variety of steps that reduce their own climate impact. However, they tend to be motivated more by financial reasons rather than environmental concerns.

Seventy-one percent of Americans believe that climate change is happening, 11% don’t think it’s happening, and 18% aren’t sure. Democrats are more likely to believe that climate change is happening than Republicans (90% vs. 51%).

Among Americans who believe climate change is happening, most believe climate change is caused either entirely or mostly by human activity. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe human activity is to blame for climate change. Few Americans attribute climate change to naturally occurring fluctuations in the environment.

Americans are particularly concerned by the impact climate change will have for future generations. The effect on coastal communities and low-income people is of great concern to many as well. The public is less concerned about the effects of climate change on them personally.

Fifty-three percent have taken at least one of the following actions to prepare for extreme weather events such as hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, or wildfires. Thirty-five percent have prepared a kit with emergency supplies, 32% have prepared a disaster plan, 21% have purchased a backup power generator, and 16% purchased additional insurance policies for weather related disasters.

Among Americans who believe climate change is happening, 70% think it is necessary for individuals to make major lifestyle changes to combat it. Democrats and women are more likely than Republicans or men to say it is necessary. Seventy percent of those who say individuals need to make major lifestyle changes to fight climate change think their own behavior influences climate change.

Most Americans are taking a variety of steps that reduce their own climate impact. And the people who believe their actions can influence climate change are more likely to engage in some eco-friendly behaviors.

However, while many Americans have taken eco-friendly actions, it is not always for environmental reasons. Many do so to save money or because it convenient.

Fewer Americans are engaging in activism related to climate change. Fifty-four percent have spoken with friends or family about climate change. Twenty-seven percent follow environmental organizations on social media, 20% volunteer or donate money to environmental organizations, and 14% have contacted their elected representatives regarding energy and climate policy.

Americans view the responsibility of addressing climate change as a national and global effort with the private sector and government more responsible than individuals. Democrats are more likely to assign responsibility to all entities compared to Republicans.

To explore the public’s agenda for the coming year, each December since 2015, The AP-NORC Center conducted a poll in which respondents provided up to five volunteered issues that they believe should be priorities for the federal government. This year, the public was also asked at the half-way mark what top five issues should be priorities for the federal government over the next year. Seventeen percent mentioned the environment or climate change. Democrats are more likely to cite climate or the environment as one of their top concerns than Republicans (29% vs. 5%)

Overall, 42% of the public approve of how President Biden is handling climate change, down from 52% last September. Among Democrats, 71% approve, while 81% of Republicans disapprove.

The nationwide poll was conducted June 23-27, 2022 using the AmeriSpeak® Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Online and telephone interviews using landlines and cell phones were conducted with 1,053 adults. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

• Suggested Citation: AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (August 2022). “More Americans are pessimistic about the impact they can have on climate change compared to three years ago.” https://apnorc.org/projects/more-americans-are-pessimistic-about-the-impact-they-can-have-on-climate-change-compared-to-three-years-ago/

RESOURCES

ARTICLEAP-NORC poll: Many in US doubt their own impact on climate

BY NUHA DOLBY AND HANNAH FINGERHUT Published 2:40 AM EDT, August 15, 2022 WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are less concerned now about how climate change might impact them personally — and about how…

[Bob Gillanders]

Statement Processing Update


Statement # 11 (Proposed)

There is no climate emergency.


4 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.
If no Challenge is Launched, then this Statement # 11 will be "generally accepted" here, and will join our list of Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)[/SIZE]

Bob A., I thought you already ruled this one obviously wrong.

Nevertheless, 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"?

[Bob Armstrong]

Statement Processing Update


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:


Processing

4 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.
If no Challenge is Launched, then this Statement # 11 will be "generally accepted" here, and will join our list of Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Sid Belzberg]

1. This Statement is not presented in "good faith". The proposer well knows that, in this CT'er group, numbers of members totally oppose this Statement.

I don't know that, I have seen many CTers who privately message me, thanking me for speaking the truth. I can call at least 6 of them I am aware of that would vote but unlike you, I am only interested in the truth; I am not a political activist conducting a campaign. Next time you want to accuse someone of 'bad faith,' you had better think long and hard about who your enemies and friends are. Truth tellers are not your enemies, and as you may have noticed here on CT, we endure a lot of abuse for telling the truth.

The fact is irrelevant to this group if his Statement IS generally accepted worldwide, which it also is NOT).

The only thing that is accepted worldwide is a lot of genocidal WEF puppet politicians pushing nonsense as described above. There is no such
consensus among scientists as described above and proven in other posts that utterly debunks the fraudulent 97% claims of Cook et al in their 2013 papers
For you, it is a political game and apparently, although you can write for hours spewing your propaganda, you can't devote ten minutes to an article I wrote debunking your other statement characterizing my analysis as dubious!

I have the power to disallow the Statement, as I asked this Group to endorse my Ruling

No one "endorsed anything", the fact is that no one was interested in reading your boring bureaucratic post. How pathetic that you relish
your "power'. A legend in your own mind, huh?

then the group must review this whole format since it has not worked to get truly and only "generally accepted" Statements.

No, it has failed to produce propaganda to your liking. You smothered these threads with the stench of your DM shit that no one cares about. I suspected
that was what you were doing when you decided to isolate the perpetrators of the climate scam into a separate NWO thread that you proceeded to bastardize into a DM propaganda thread.

[Bob Armstrong]

Negative Climate Change (NCC)

Generally-Accepted Statements

(Accepted by a group of Canadian Tournament Chess players [Across 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)

Statement # 11 (Proposed - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1783 - 23/9/27)

There is no climate emergency.

[Secretarial Note:

1. This Statement is not presented in "good faith". The proposer well knows that, in this CT'er group, numbers of members totally oppose this Statement. There cannot be a "generally accepted" Statement of this type on this issue in this CT'er group (The fact is irrelevant to this group if his Statement IS generally accepted world-wide, which it also is NOT).

I have the power to disallow the Statement, as I asked this Group to endorse my Ruling, which they did, that we would not accept as any proposed Statement, one dealing with the source of Canadian Wildfires i.e. Arson.

However, it may be time for our The Conversation Format Protocol to deal with this properly, or to fail to deal with it. If this Statement is "generally accepted" by this group, then the group must review this whole format, since it has not worked to get truly and only "generally-accepted" Statements.

So I will treat the Statement, this one time, as in good faith, which it is not, and process it in the same way as all the prior Statements in this thread.

2. There are at present only 10 Statements in our list - see the last "Update" post. Sid has wrongly numbered his proposed Statement as # 12 - I have re-numbered it as # 11.]

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:


Processing

There shall be one week for Revision and/or Opposition Challenges; deadline: Wed., Oct. 4 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Noam Chomsky

Climate Change 3 (Chomsky).pdf

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Proposed Statement 12 There is no climate emergency.

Evidence


“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:

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Sid:

It is amazing how each individual's "Multi-Verse Paradigm (M-VP)" informs the way they perceive.

Two people can look at the same objective static object, and have two wildly differing descriptions.

It is a great validation for the philosophy of "Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl) - that we overlay our projection of characteristics on some object out there. Then we have to self-analyze, and peel back all the layers we've subjectively put on the "object", in order to try to get close to what it REALLY is.

Bob A (Philosopher)

Bob, for once in your life knock off the bullshit, read the article and please enlighten me where you claim my analysis is "very dubious". Put up or shut up!

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Negative Climate Change (NCC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Weekly Overview



A. Weekly Stats:

Week # 38 (23/9/18 – 24, 2023 [7 days])

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(38 wks.)___________

........35...................23.........................37....................44

Responses (Posts)

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

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

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (38 wks.)__________________

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

Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week's stats are running close to the 2023 average so far, and ahead of the prior week's participation.

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 chess players 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.

c. CT'ers' Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Negative Climate Change

i) The Large Picture Solution

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?
You can do something! Promote the discussion on Negative Climate Change!

ii) The Local Picture Solution

When you like one of this thread's Responses or links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in! Send them to your personal friends interested in climate change!

Bob A. (Anthropogenicist/As Participant)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Sid:

It is amazing how each individual's "Multi-Verse Paradigm (M-VP)" informs the way they perceive.

Two people can look at the same objective static object, and have two wildly differing descriptions.

It is a great validation for the philosophy of "Phenomenology (Edmund Husserl) - that we overlay our projection of characteristics on some object out there. Then we have to self-analyze, and peel back all the layers we've subjectively put on the "object", in order to try to get close to what it REALLY is.

Bob A (Philosopher)

[Sid Belzberg]

I'm not on line so much lately......but I'll give it a shot when I can........will have to be in pieces at a time.

I expect you are going to answer, not only what has been done, but why they are bothering when the population of Earth is going to nose dive soon naturally (Low birthrate makes holding the world population impossible [Unless we have ET Emigrants]).

Bob A (The ET's are already, in fact, part of the World Population numbers, mis-identified as "humans". Seems they are not countering the natural de-population problem, if it is such).

I expect you are going to answer

Just read my reply before posting. You have time to speculate about what I post but no time to read....not a good look!

You made this statement

and kept up with his very dubious analysis]

You make this ignorant misinformed statement I reply and you have time to speculate about what I replied instead of just reading it. Of course,
what can I expect from someone who claims to know that the WEF NAZIS view themselves as "benevolent".