Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

CT/Negative Climate Change




Update on Generally Accepted Statements

[Part I of 2]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

We now have 11 STATEMENTS in various stages of acceptance (See below).

We use “The Conversation Format Protocol (TCFP)”. All Statements are a work-in-progress, though for some, there are now no outstanding Proposed Revision/Opposition Challenges.

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.

Support - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1453 – 23/7/20 - slightly edited) - "Our new Commonly Accepted Statement # 1 does not play one way or another as to whether the rise in temperature is a “problem”. It merely states the fact that Naturalists agree with - their fact is that the average rising temperature is about .5 degrees C every 100 years.....that is "rising" temperature."

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.

Support 1 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1485 – 23/7/22 [Lightly Edited]

“The post of Sid Belzberg (Post # 1296 – 23/4/29) "supports" Statement # 2! He asserts evidence that the average rate of increase is ".5 degrees every 100 years" over a 300 year period. This confirms "the temperature is now rising, and has been for some time".

Arguably, if it has been rising for 300 years, and you look at all the human problems arising from this rising heat (See Statement # 3), then heat is going to "likely continue to rise for some time in the future". We, of course, at this point in developing our Statements, have not taken on the issue, yet, of whether this trend of .5 degrees per 100 years is the expected increase for the future.”

Support 2 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1523 – 23/7/27

“The New Warming Climate State/Multi-Century Temperature Periods

Scientists concluded a few years ago that Earth had entered a new climate state not seen in more than 100,000 years. As fellow climate scientist Nick McKay and I recently discussed in a scientific journal article, that conclusion was part of a climate assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2021.

Earth was already more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times, and the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were high enough to assure temperatures would stay elevated for a long time.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-re...=pocket-newtab “

Support 3 – Bob Armstrong – Post # 1526 23/7/27

“This [July] Looks Like Earth’s Warmest Month. Hotter Ones Appear to Be in Store.

July is on track to break all records for any month, scientists say, as the planet enters an extended period of exceptional warmth.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/27/c...d396a4debfd6ce “

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.

Support 1 - Bob Gillanders (Post # 1468 – 23/7/19)

"Seems crazy and very hard to believe that they [Texas Governor, Greg Abbot,] would have to legislate employers to allow such breaks from a scorching heat work environment, but apparently that is the case. The water breaks since 2010 that Governor Abbott now wants to take away has reduced the death toll on workers significantly."

Support # 2 - Fred Harvey (Post # 1470 - 23/7/19)

"I have lived in the same town for 50 plus years (how dull...not). Amongst other things, I have seen the tomato growing season go from 2.5 months to 4 months. For 35 years we lived without air-conditioning....now not so much. Them's two facts that suggest significant warming."

Support # 3 - Bob Armstrong (Post # 1451 - 23/7/11)

"I, for one, believe we see "problems" for human living all around us every day, the world over, from rising heat levels (Regardless of arguing over why the heat is rising or the rate at which it is rising)."

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.

Support - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data.”

Statement # 6

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.]

Supporting Reasons - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1735 - 23/9/1

The source of the percentage of CO2 in the air, both historically, and currently is given. The spike in CO2 after the human Industrial Revolution (Approx. 1850 A.D.) coincides with the period of increased warming. CO2 is only one of the greenbelt gases forming the non-porous heat canopy around the Earth.
This Statement deals only with CO2 in the air/atmosphere. It does not tie the rising temperature of the Earth to the spike in CO2; that will have to await future Statements, if there can be a generally accepted on in this group at all.

Opposition Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

[Secretarial Note: Sid did not temporarily withdraw his Challenge while the Revision Challenge was pending, and he knew the content of the new Statement # 6 being proposed. In fairness to Sid, I have decided to post the Challenge as against the new Statement as well, and process it. Sid is free at any time to revise this Challenge, to update it, or can leave it, or can now withdraw it if that be his wish.]

Processing

There will be one week for CT'ers to come forward and post Supplementary Support Reasons, or, Supplementary Opposition Reasons; deadline: Friday, Sept. 8 @ 11;59 PM EDT.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Protocol Decision Consequences

[Part II of 2 Parts; see Part I above]

Statement # 6

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.]

Supporting Reasons - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1735 - 23/9/1

The source of the percentage of CO2 in the air, both historically, and currently is given. The spike in CO2 after the human Industrial Revolution (Approx. 1850 A.D.) coincides with the period of increased warming. CO2 is only one of the greenbelt gases forming the non-porous heat canopy around the Earth.
This Statement deals only with CO2 in the air/atmosphere. It does not tie the rising temperature of the Earth to the spike in CO2; that will have to await future Statements, if there can be a generally accepted on in this group at all.

Opposition Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

[Secretarial Note: Sid did not temporarily withdraw his Challenge while the Revision Challenge was pending, and he knew the content of the new Statement # 6 being proposed.In fairness to Sid, I have decided to post the Challenge as against the new Statement as well, and process it. Sid is free at any time to revise this Challenge, to update it, or can leave it, or can now withdraw it if that be his wish.]

Processing

There will be one week for CT'ers to come forward and post Supplementary Support Reasons, or, Supplementary Opposition Reasons; deadline: Friday, Sept. 8 @ 11:59 PM EDT.

[Secretarial Note: Now that the wording of Statement # 6 is settled, the Statement now returns to being processed.]


Statements # 10 & # 11 deal also with CO2, which is the core of Statement # 6, and its Challenge. As the Group Secretary ruled earlier, we do not want to end up with inconsistent Statements on CO2. So the processing of Statements # 10 & # 11 is paused until Statement # 6 is settled (Friday, Sept. 8 @ 11:59 PM EDT). This earlier Ruling is still in the process of being open to Challenge to Monday, Sept. 4 @ 11:59 PM EDT. This decision may affect the Ruling above.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Decision for this CT'er Group on Discussion Format

[Part I of 2 parts]

Challenge to current Protocol: by Sid Belzberg (See below)

Protocol # 1 - "Generally Accepted Statements" Model (Originally Proposed by Bob Armstrong, and currently in use in this group)

The Operation of the Model

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.
It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation. We could still aim for intellectual rigor and respectful debate, but the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.
But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Support Reasons

A general exchange of ideas between participants of a group is very beneficial.

But it generally does not produce anything else concrete because of controversy within the group on various issues.

This Protocol # 1 invites the group a step above and beyond! It asks if, among the debate against other participants, leading to an agreement to disagree, the group can produce something more? Cooperation is proposed........come to what all commonly agree on in generally accepted Statements! This is helpful to all participants, and shows where the real sticking points are. As well, if wanted, a member can share the list of generally accepted Statements they have achieved with others, for their evaluation. It is clear that this protocol does not put forward any insurmountable task - generally accepted Statements abound here now on negative climate change, in my TRN thread on Facebook, in my Democratic Marxist Global Forum on Facebook, and here on CT in the Human Self-Government thread (On government, Libertarianism and now Democratic Marxism)......far from being insurmountable, it is being wildly successful. It is a most valuable tool in a polarized group, and in a polarized society, where all that is happening is that the two sides yell at each other, and neither side listens to the other......both sides just keep yelling, knowing they will never convert over the opposition.

This protocol is based on the belief that people of good faith can have a "conversation", be respectful despite disagreement, and agree on some things both sides believe to be true. AND they can remain friends, and go have a beer together.

The free expression of ideas, as is usual in social media formats, is in no way removed.......put forward your opinions.

It is true, perhaps, that this does alter somewhat the flow of discussion (It has not done that here......lots of opposing views). But if something "concrete" is being produced, along with free discussion, then the inconvenience to the flow of discussion seems acceptable, and worthwhile.

Challenge - Protocol # 2 - "Free Form Discussion" Protocol (Proposed by Sid Belzberg - Post # 1692 - 23/8/26)

Each participant can express their views fully, sometimes in opposition, without the necessity of trying to reach majority agreement Statements.

Support Reasons

This protocol better allows participants to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.This protocol aims for intellectual rigour and respectful debate, with the emphasis on the exchange of ideas (rather than on agreement).

It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation.

It may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Processing

After one week, no CT'er has come forward to Supplement the Challenge (Changing to Protocol # 2).

Conclusion

This CT'er group will continue to use the "Generally Accepted" (The Conversation Format Protocol) Protocol # 1.

Consequences of The Decision on Protocol

The following Statements were put on hold until there was a decision on this issue:

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

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.

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

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.

Since the decision on Protocol has now been made these two Statement would again, normally, now be processed and have a new one-week deadline for a Challenge.

But in the interim, there is now outstanding a Challenge to Statement # 6.

[See Part II below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 6

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.]

Supporting Reasons - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1735 - 23/9/1

The source of the percentage of CO2 in the air, both historically, and currently is given. The spike in CO2 after the human Industrial Revolution (Approx. 1850 A.D.) coincides with the period of increased warming. CO2 is only one of the greenbelt gases forming the non-porous heat canopy around the Earth.
This Statement deals only with CO2 in the air/atmosphere. It does not tie the rising temperature of the Earth to the spike in CO2; that will have to await future Statements, if there can be a generally accepted on in this group at all.

Opposition Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 (23/4/29)

"What is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statements 1 & 2 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

[Secretarial Note: Sid did not temporarily withdraw his Challenge while the Revision Challenge was pending, and he knew the content of the new Statement # 6 being proposed.In fairness to Sid, I have decided to post the Challenge as against the new Statement as well, and process it. Sid is free at any time to revise this Challenge, to update it, or can leave it, or can now withdraw it if that be his wish.]

Processing

There will be one week for CT'ers to come forward and post Supplementary Support Reasons, or, Supplementary Opposition Reasons; deadline: Friday, Sept. 8 @ 11;59 PM EDT.

[Secretarial Note: Now that the wording of Statement # 6 is settled, the Statement now returns to being processed.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 6

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.]

Processing

The above is the proposed Revision of the original. Within one week, not one CT'er has launched any challenge.

Conclusion

The above Statement # 6 is generally accepted and joins the list of other generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics). The individuals represent a political partisan spectrum, and an issue spectrum.

Statement # 11 (Proposed - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1670 - 23/8/21)

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:

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.

Opposition Challenge Reasons

CO2 is a major component of the greenhouse gas canopy around Earth. This canopy (Methane is actually the more serious component however) is causing heat to be trapped in the Earth's air/atmosphere, and is raising the temperature of Earth's air/atmosphere, oceans and seas, soil, etc. this is the greatest threat to his existence that man has ever faced.

Humans cannot handle "heat prostration" (Definition: A condition marked by weakness, nausea, dizziness, and profuse sweating that results from physical exertion in a hot environment. Heat exhaustion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). Only now, the "heat prostration" is not due to "physical exercise".....it is due to the simple inability to escape the heat. Even if Humans are able to go underground, the technology for inside air quality and temperature control will brake down under the stress on the energy system.

The fact that CO2 is good for Earth's vegetation is not relevant. Continued existence of the human species is more important than the greening of the planet.

For the Role of CO2 from 500 million years ago, see the video of YouTuber Pothole54.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=38s

So CO2 is a "dangerous pollutant", and Statement # 11 is false.

Processing

Statement # 11 is paused in Processing, due to the decision pending by CT'ers here, on the type of Protocol they wish to use on this board. Once decided, the one week processing period will again begin.

Request of Challenger

At the moment, one CT'er supports the Statement # 11 (Sid Belzberg, the Proposer). One CT'er has launched an opposition challenge (Me as Participant), arguing the Statement is not true, and so should NOT be generally accepted by this group.

Under our current protocol, this Statement # 11 is going to be ruled by the Group Secretary, to be "generally accepted" unless one other CT'er comes forward with "Supplementary Challenge Reasons".

I would ask all CT'ers here to take a second look at the proposed Statement # 11, and the arguments, and if you decide the Statement is not true, then please post so that the Challenge is supplemented by at least one other CT'er in the group, other than just me (Having two CT'ers voting against the Proposer [Sid] would give us a majority vote, and the Statement will be ruled NOT generally accepted and will be dismissed).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Statement # 10 (Proposed) - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1654 - 23/8/15)

Part 3 [Of 3 Parts; See Parts 1 & 2 above]

The Climate Money Machine



Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative,

Mr. Lindzen said “because it’s a hoax.”
Mr. Clauser said of the climate consensus, “We are totally awash in pseudoscience.”

“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet,” Mr. Happer said. “I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”

The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address climate change, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year. And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight climate change over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.

“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels if suddenly there were no climate change emergency,” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”

Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.

Research grants to study climate change are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as by non-profits including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which paid out $458 million since 2014.

“Going back to [19]88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.

“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist,” he said. “By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”

Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson stated: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/articl...a-hoax-5460699

[Secretary Note: Where Challenge, Defence, Support and Supplement texts are extensive, in future only the reference to the extensive Post Number will be posted (Otherwise updates become unwieldy). But it is open to the author to post an Executive Summary of the text to replace the extensive text. The Executive Summary text will be added in.]

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

I think statement # 10 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

Our revised group Statement # 6 will be on our list of generally accepted Statements at 12:00 AM tomorrow:

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.]

Sid's Statement # 10 (Proposed) is roughly in agreement with the fact re current CO2:

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.

But other scientists draw very opposite conclusions from Sid's Statement # 10! This is a big spike recently in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. They 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 with Bob G - it is not generally acceptable and should be stricken from the list of Statements.

Processing: Statement # 10 is paused in Processing, due to the decision pending by CT'ers here, on the type of Protocol they wish to use on this board. Once decided, the one week processing period will again begin.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re Statement # 10 (Proposed)

Part 2 (Of 3 Parts; Part 1 above) of Supporting Reasons (Belzberg Post # 1654 - 23/8/15)

In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.

“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true,” he said. “People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ‘30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”

An example of misleading data used by the EPA as proof of global warming is shown in the chart below, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen claimed.
EPA data shows an increasing ratio of daily record high-to-low temperatures in order to indicate rising global temperatures (Source: NOAA/NCEI).
“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” they state. “Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows - a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”

By contrast, the scientists presented the following table, which indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s versus today.
This data indicates that heat waves were more severe in the 1930s than today. (Source: EPA).The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for Climate Change


Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it is “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.

According to an official NASA statement, “the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”

A report by Cornell University states that “more than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”

But Mr. Happer argues that consensus is not science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.

“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus; it doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true, if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong,” he said. “And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”

The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said, “consensus is the business of politics.”

“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world,” Dr. Crichton said. “In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”

“The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now,” Mr. Happer said. “Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”
The Price of Dissent


Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter that academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative.

“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said. He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” he said. “They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter because I already have status. But it would matter a lot if I were younger and I had a career that I was trying to make.”

In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”

Ms. Curry, the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said that when she published a study that claimed hurricanes were increasing in intensity, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star; I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”

When several researchers questioned her findings, she investigated their claims and concluded that her critics were correct.

“Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said. But when she went public with that fact, she was shunned, she said and pushed out of academia.

Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale, once he began to question the climate narrative.

“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser told The Epoch Times that he, too, was abruptly canceled from giving a speech on climate at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25.

Mr. Clauser had stated during a previous speech at Quantum Korea 2023 that “climate change is not a crisis.”

He said that climate is a self-regulating process and that more clouds form when temperatures rise, resulting in a compensatory cooling effect. Although he agrees that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he argued that the gas's effect on global warming is swamped by the natural cloud cycle.

However, only days before his IMF discussion was to take place, Mr. Clauser received an email indicating that the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn't want the event to happen. An assistant who was coordinating the event wrote to Mr. Clauser: “When I arranged this the Director was very happy about it but things have evidently changed.”

The IMF’s current policy on climate change is that “large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030, consistent with limiting global warming to 2° [Celcius] or less.”

[See Part 3 below; See Part 1 above].


Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

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.

Supporting Reasons

Part 1/ 3 [See Parts 2 & 3 below] (Belzberg Post # 1653 - 23/8/15)

Two Princeton, MIT Scientists Say EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’

Physicist, meteorologist testify that the climate agenda is ‘disastrous’ for America



Two prominent climate scientists have taken on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rules to cut CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”

Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen stated. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”



“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” they stated. “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models like the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. He presented the table below to the EPA to illustrate his point.
Modeled climate predictions (average shown by red line) versus actual observations (source: J.R. Christy, Univ. of Alabama; KNMI Climate Explorer)
“That was already an embarrassment in the ‘90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
Why Climate Change Policies Could Be Even Worse Than the COVID Lockdowns: Andrew Montford
Play Video
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.

Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what is called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA does not have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous impact on Americans without clear direction from Congress. Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen, however, have taken a different tack, arguing that the EPA regulations fail the “State Farm” test because they are “arbitrary and capricious.”

“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they stated. The case they referred to is the 2003 case of State Farm v. Campell (pdf), in which the Supreme Court argued that “a State can have no legitimate interest in deliberately making the law so arbitrary that citizens will be unable to avoid punishment based solely upon bias or whim.”

According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”

They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher levels of both CO2 and temperatures than today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are historically at a low point.
This chart shows CO2 levels (blue) and temperatures (red) over time, indicating little correlation and current levels of both at historic lows. (Source: Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese; Earth's Climate: Past and Future by Mark Peganini; Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleocene, Science magazine vol. 309.)
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they stated.

In addition, the scientists' testimony to the EPA stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider the fact that CO2 and fossil fuels are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.

“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they stated. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet and a benign warming in temperature.”
Synthetic fertilizers (dotted line) have increased crop yields dramatically since their introduction. (Source: crop yields from USDA; fertilizer usage from Food Agriculture Organization).
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they argued. In addition, synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today. “Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally, they said.
The world's population is increasingly dependent on synthetic fertilizers, a derivative of fossil fuels. (Source: ourworldindata.org)
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.

In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics has focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.

“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”

His expertise, he said, “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming.”

The global warming narrative argues that as people burn fossil fuels, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which absorbs sunlight and creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.

But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, Mr. Happer said, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.

“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” Mr. Happer said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”

“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only one percent,” Mr. Happer said. “Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well known for a century.”
The "greenhouse effect" of additional CO2 does not increase in proportion to the amount of CO2 added (source: William Happer).
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists also cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the climate-change narrative.

[See Parts 2 & 3/3 below]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Decision on Style of Discussion in this Negative Climate Change Thread



Update

Protocol # 1 - "Generally Accepted Statements" Model (Originally Proposed by Bob Armstrong, and currently in use in this group)

The Operation of the Model

a. Revision Situation

Statement on Libertarianism proposed, with Support Reasons; Dilip (A Libertarian) objects that the Statement is slightly "inaccurate" and not Libertarian policy as he understands it. So he proposes a "Revision Challenge" - he puts forward a "Revised Statement", with Reasons. So we now have two competing positions. At this point only 2 CT'ers have publicly come forward.

If other CT'ers now weigh in on each side, we get some view, at least by participants, as to the leaning of the group (We assume in our protocol, that the CT'ers not participating go with the majority....they don't care, they don't know, they are too busy to currently participate, etc. ..... the principle is that if you are part of the group, and don't like something, and don't speak up, the group is entitled to assume that you do agree).

What should the Secretary rule? My protocol is that if the weight of opinion from participation is clear (The proposer on one side; 10 participants opposing & supporting the revision), then this Statement should be rejected and replaced.....the Libertarians in the group have spoken.

What if the weight of opinion is not clear to the Group Secretary when the deadline of one week has passed?.........The Libertarians are fighting among themselves! It seems to me that neither of the competing Statements has been able to muster majority support (sigh). Since our standard that we're trying to achieve with Statements is "generally accepted by the group", the threshold has not been met.

So the decision must then be that the proposed Statement is NOT generally accepted, due to controversy within the group, and the group's, and Secretary's, knowledge that there is also "Controversy Outside the Group. Thus, first, the proposed Challenge must be dismissed (No clear Majority).

What about the Proposed Statement? Our protocol is based on the idea that when a Proposer proposes a Statement, they truly believe it to be generally accepted (Surely they would not put onto our plate a Statement they definitely knew was "Controversial"! After all, our goal is not for one side or the other to "win".....we are looking here for cooperation and agreement (Majority agreement will do; needn't be "unanimous, though that is always nice). It is given the benefit of the doubt due to our trusting our proposers. So even if there is "controversy", we have decided that we will agree, under our protocol, that the Statement IS generally accepted, and will join the list of Libertarian Statements. Of course, a Statement is always open to a "new" Revision Challenge.

b. Opposition Situation

In this case, it is not accuracy of the Statement that is the issue. It is considered an accurate Statement if no Revision Challenge has been launched.
It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation. We could still aim for intellectual rigor and respectful debate, but the emphasis would be on the exchange of ideas rather than agreement.
But some member of the group is apoplectic that the Statement is just simply false, untenable, unworkable, not a correct Statement about the Multi-verse. So their first step is to launch an "Opposition Challenge", with Reasons (Explaining respectfully why the proposer just doesn't understand life, opposing the Statement, and tearing apart the Proposed Statement's Supporting Reasons).

Again, if there is active participation by CT'ers, the Secretary conclusion will be clear as to whether the Challenge should be dismissed.

But if the situation is unclear to the Group Secretary, what does s/he do about the proposed Statement? It has clearly failed to show majority support. We need a principle as to what to do with the proposed Statement. I suggest it should be the same as for the proposed Statement, for which there was a Revision Challenge. The Statement gets the benefit of the doubt, is generally accepted, and joins the list of Statements.

Support Reasons

A general exchange of ideas between participants of a group is very beneficial.

But it generally does not produce anything else concrete because of controversy within the group on various issues.

This Protocol # 1 invites the group a step above and beyond! It asks if, among the debate against other participants, leading to an agreement to disagree, the group can produce something more? Cooperation is proposed........come to what all commonly agree on in generally accepted Statements! This is helpful to all participants, and shows where the real sticking points are. As well, if wanted, a member can share the list of generally accepted Statements they have achieved with others, for their evaluation. It is clear that this protocol does not put forward any insurmountable task - generally accepted Statements abound here now on negative climate change, in my TRN thread on Facebook, in my Democratic Marxist Global Forum on Facebook, and here on CT in the Human Self-Government thread (On government, Libertarianism and now Democratic Marxism)......far from being insurmountable, it is being wildly successful. It is a most valuable tool in a polarized group, and in a polarized society, where all that is happening is that the two sides yell at each other, and neither side listens to the other......both sides just keep yelling, knowing they will never convert over the opposition.

This protocol is based on the belief that people of good faith can have a "conversation", be respectful despite disagreement, and agree on some things both sides believe to be true. AND they can remain friends, and go have a beer together.

The free expression of ideas, as is usual in social media formats, is in no way removed.......put forward your opinions.

It is true, perhaps, that this does alter somewhat the flow of discussion (It has not done that here......lots of opposing views). But if something "concrete" is being produced, along with free discussion, then the inconvenience to the flow of discussion seems acceptable, and worthwhile.

Protocol # 2 - "Free Form Discussion" Protocol (Proposed by Sid Belzberg - Post # 1692 - 23/8/26)

Each participant can express their views fully, sometimes in opposition, without the necessity of trying to reach majority agreement Statements.

Support Reasons

This protocol better allows participants to engage in rich, nuanced conversations about complex issues.This protocol aims for intellectual rigour and respectful debate, with the emphasis on the exchange of ideas (rather than on agreement).

It would also remove the administrative burden of managing challenges and revisions, allowing for a more organic flow of conversation.

It may be an insurmountable challenge to find statements that are truly "generally accepted."

Decision to Be Made by CT'ers

Which Protocol is preferred by you? And why?

Processing

There will be one week for comments (Deadline: Sat., Sept. 2 @ 11:59 PM EDT).

Consequences of Outstanding Vote on Protocol Adoption

The following Statements are put on hold until there is a decision on this issue:

Statement # 10 (Proposed)

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.

Statement # 11 (Proposed)

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.

Once a decision is made on which Protocol the CT'ers here are going to adopt, a new one-week deadline will apply to all 3 Statements re dealing with Challenges, if any.

[Note re Statement # 6:

Statement # 6

Original Statement (Proposed)


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.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

Revision Statement (Proposed)

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.]

Since the deadline for the processing of Statement # 6 is already upon us (Midnight tonight), this Statement will not be affected by the Protocol Choice pending.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

Statements on Negative Climate Change
(Generally Accepted by a Group of Canadian tournament Chess Players on the national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Topics); they represent a spectrum of partisan political opinion, and an issue spectrum; in Layman's Terms")

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.

Processing

There was an Opposition Challenge to this Statement # 9.

But within one week, not one CT'er came forward with a "Supplement to Challenge Reasons".

Conclusion

Under our Protocol, which gives an initially proposed Statement the benefit of the doubt that it is generally accepted, subject to processing, Statement # 9 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted Statements.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob G., is this what is really bothering you ? (you put it right on the top in your post).
I thought you would say: if false, the climate would really suffer...
Instead of having sympathy for the fuel industry which is being attacked all around by well-meaning as well as ill-meaning entities, you are dismayed at the possibility of them getting a respite, even if it is true that CO2 is not the culprit...
Please explain!
If you meant to convey that "if everybody 'wrongly' believes that it is true, the fuel industry would benefit, and hence you suspect that they are spreading this 'false' notion", that would be an expected statement, but the statement as you put it really surprises me …

Explain! What?

I think my comments are easy to understand. I will pass on your kind invitation to explain myself.

Give it some thought if you wish, or just ignore me. That's okay.
It's a nice cool 14 degrees out this morning, so I am heading over to Tim's for a coffee.

Have a nice day.

[Dilip Panjwani]

It has been child's play to destruct LIbertarian viewpoints

That is what you and Bob A try to convince yourselves of... in Bob's case it is because he is subconsciously afraid of losing his love of democratic Marxism, and the reason in your case I have already mentioned a number of times...

[Dilip Panjwani]

"Generally accepted" is as meaningless today as it was in times of persecuting Galileo for not conforming with "generally accepted." Science does not progress with the "generally accepted." 20+ million people are now dead from the adverse events of slow-kill bioweapons aka "vaccines" These, too were "generally accepted".

And dear Bob A, please read this para by Sid carefully to understand that making Marxism democratic does not make it much better than non-democratic Marxism....

[Dilip Panjwani]

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".

.

Bob G., is this what is really bothering you ? (you put it right on the top in your post).
I thought you would say: if false, the climate would really suffer...
Instead of having sympathy for the fuel industry which is being attacked all around by well-meaning as well as ill-meaning entities, you are dismayed at the possibility of them getting a respite, even if it is true that CO2 is not the culprit...
Please explain!
If you meant to convey that "if everybody 'wrongly' believes that it is true, the fuel industry would benefit, and hence you suspect that they are spreading this 'false' notion", that would be an expected statement, but the statement as you put it really surprises me …