Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Oh, no no no no, you promised simple math, so keep it simple.

    Just take it one day at a time, that way my argument holds.
    Given 10,000 cities and 120 years of historical data, if more than 100 cities have new daily highest temperature, then that confirms climate change is real.

    Keep it simple.
    Don't be so simple as not to understand variability... by your logic, if less than 100 cities have a new daily high on a particular day, the earth would be cooling!
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Monday, 24th July, 2023, 08:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

    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.

    Update


    Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

    "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


    Defence 1 (To Challenge # 1) - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

    "Sid's facts "support" 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."

    Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

    "Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

    Re Challenge # 2

    Defence 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

    "Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

    Defence 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

    "...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

    Challenge Supplement 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

    I think Dillip's point was as follows
    1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
    2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
    3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

    The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
    Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
    insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
    So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
    So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

    Challenge Supplement 2 - Dilip Panjwani- Post# 1491- 23/7/23 (Re Defence 3)

    You are on the right track [Bob G], but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...

    Challenge Supplement 3 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1492 - 23/7/23 (Re Challenge Supplement 1)

    Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.

    Invitation

    This CT'er Group is invited to weigh in at any point, even if you have not previously participated, and support the Statement, support any of the Challenges or Defences, or just comment, either your own, or on someone else's above. I will do my best to integrate them in (It will help if you refer to the number of the Challenge, Defence, etc.


    Bob A (As group Secretary)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    You are on the right track, but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...
    Oh, no no no no, you promised simple math, so keep it simple.

    Just take it one day at a time, that way my argument holds.
    Given 10,000 cities and 120 years of historical data, if more than 100 cities have new daily highest temperature, then that confirms climate change is real.

    Keep it simple.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Hi Dilip:

    It is my intention to try to keep the Challenges and Defences together in one place, for easier discussion, and up-to-date, though I have limited time on the internet, and there may be some delays. But CT'ers should go and jump in to make comments on Statements, Challenges and Defences, whenever. I can collect and organize the few that may have happened since my last "Update" (Or Overview).

    Bob A (As Group Secretary)

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Fred Harvey View Post

    Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well.....
    Do you get it after reading my responses to Bob G and Sid?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

    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.

    Update


    Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

    "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


    Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

    "Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

    Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

    "Sid's facts "support" 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."

    Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

    "Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

    Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

    "...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

    Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

    I think Dillip's point was as follows
    1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
    2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
    3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

    The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
    Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
    insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
    So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
    So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

    Bob A (As group Secretary)
    Bob A, now that I have further clarified my math in the two posts above, you may want to make the corrections in your post...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Sid Belzberg View Post

    I think Dilip's point was as follows
    1. Dilip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
    2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
    3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact, if even 1% had record temperatures once a year (not 30) it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

    The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
    Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1.
    Hence your statement supports the notion that climate change is real as the UK data shows that climate change is real at a very modest .5 degrees every century hence based on a model of only 1 percent record temps it is easy to catastrophe these events without taking into account that these patterns are repeatable. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
    Sorry, Sid, not so...maybe I was not clear enough. It does not have to be the same 1000 cities each year or the same 30 days each year...even cool cities can have 'hottest ever' dates (calendar dates, not the other type of dates which you would consider the hotter the better) in any season, and when CNN cites records, it is generally referring to records for particular dates, I think)... Please see my explanation to Bob G, above.
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 23rd July, 2023, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

    taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

    Dilip, do you want to check my math?

    You are on the right track, but you forget that there are 365 days in a year. If you look at only one city, over 120 years, every year would have 3 record breaking days, even if there is no climate change. But if you are looking at records of 10000 cities, 3 record breaking days in each of 10000 cities for any particular calendar date (like the hottest ever July 5, or the hottest ever August 1, or the hottest ever Christmas Day etc), or given the inconsistencies of nature (nothing is uniformly distributed), it could be 30 record breaking days in just 1000 cities....which would also lead to every year of the 120 years having the same number of record breaks; yet CNN will get anxious about it...
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 23rd July, 2023, 11:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

    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.

    Update


    Challenge # 1 - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - 23/4/29

    "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."


    Challenge # 2 - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 1486 - 23/7/22

    "Siimple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so..."

    Defence # 1 - Bob Armstrong - Post # 1485 - 23/7/20

    "Sid's facts "support" 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."

    Defence # 2 - Fred Harvey - Post # 1487 - 23/7/23

    "Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well....."

    Defence # 3 - Bob Gillanders - Post # 1488 - 23/7/23

    "...taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real."

    Challenge # 2 Supplement - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1489 - 23/7/23

    I think Dillip's point was as follows
    1. Dillip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
    2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
    3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact if even 1% had record temperatures it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

    The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
    Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1
    insofar as for practical purposes almost no climate change but enough so that on the same days every year you would see "record Temps".
    So statement 1 is not unreasonable based on real-world data.
    So even if a small percentage of cities around the world experience record-breaking temp on their hot days, it leads to a significant number of reporting events. For example, in Scotland and the UK alone, there are over 5000 towns. One percent of this (50) allows for a weekly news story of record-breaking temp, whether it is the coldest day of the year or the hottest day of the year.

    Bob A (As group Secretary)
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 23rd July, 2023, 09:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

    taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

    Dilip, do you want to check my math?

    I think Dilip's point was as follows
    1. Dilip assumes that there has been no change in the climate over the last 120 years, and each city experiences its highest-ever temperature on the same 30 days each year.
    2. Under this assumption, some cities would consistently have extreme heat events on those specific days every year.
    3. Even if only 10% of the 10000 cities (1000 cities) experienced this pattern, it would still lead to a substantial number of record-breaking temperatures worldwide. In fact, if even 1% had record temperatures once a year (not 30) it is still good for a news report every 3-4 days(!)

    The underlying idea here seems to be that with a large number of cities globally, even a relatively small proportion experiencing extreme heat events consistently could result in a significant impact in terms of the number of record-breaking temperatures.
    Given the CETIS data set (UK Meteorological Centre data going back 300 years), we have seen, on average a very modest .5 degrees temp every 100 years, so this data would support Statement 1.
    Hence your statement supports the notion that climate change is real as the UK data shows that climate change is real at a very modest .5 degrees every century hence based on a model of only 1 percent record temps it is easy to catastrophe these events without taking into account that these patterns are repeatable. There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Sunday, 23rd July, 2023, 08:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Gillanders
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
    Agree, Bob A?
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)
    Oh oh, I like simple math, let me jump in here!

    taking Dilip's parameters: 10,000 cities, records for last 120 years, assuming no climate change, how many cities would see their hottest days this year?

    more than 100 years of data, so less than 1% chance each city would see their hottest day, okay.
    10,000 cities x 1% = 100 cities.....so if no climate change, less than 100 cities would see hottest days this year.
    so if more 100 cities are seeing hottest days, then climate change is real.

    Dilip, do you want to check my math?


    Leave a comment:


  • Fred Harvey
    replied
    Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

    Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
    Agree, Bob A?
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)
    Say what? You need to explain how your "simple math" comes up with these numbers! Fox sends many red flags up as well.....

    Leave a comment:


  • Dilip Panjwani
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
    Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

    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.

    Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."

    Defence - Bob Armstrong - Sid's facts "support" 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.

    Processing Protocol

    Under "The Conversation Format" protocol 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 the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

    We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 2.

    Bob A (As Group Secretary)
    Simple math for the 10000 cities around the world:
    If we look at the climate records of the last 120 years, and assume that there was no change whatsoever in the climate over this period, more than 1000 cities could have 30 hottest ever days every year. Given that the climate is not the same every year, there could be some years with 2000 cities having 60 hottest ever days...!!
    Well, 2023 is the year CNN and other MSM decide to act like a broken record about broken records, but keeping the simple math shown above in mind, is there any real evidence that we are approaching a crisis? Does not seem so...
    Agree, Bob A?
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...e-extreme-heat (wait for the video after the ads)
    Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Sunday, 23rd July, 2023, 12:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Armstrong
    replied
    Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change

    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.

    Challenge - Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years."

    Defence - Bob Armstrong - Sid's facts "support" 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.

    Processing Protocol

    Under "The Conversation Format" protocol 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 the originator of the Statement, and any other CT'ers here, must defend the Statement's truth. As well, the onus is on the Challenger to muster CT'er support for his/her challenge, to confirm that he is not the only challenger.

    We will revisit this in one week to see what activity there has been re Statement # 2.

    Bob A (As Group Secretary)

    Leave a comment:


  • Sid Belzberg
    replied
    A Global network of over 1500 Scientists and professionals headed by Nobel laureate IVAR GIAEVER put out the following declaration:



    There is no climate emergency


    A global network of over 1501 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

    Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

    The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

    Warming is far slower than predicted

    The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

    Climate policy relies on inadequate models

    Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

    CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

    CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

    Global warming has not increased natural disasters

    There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

    Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

    There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

    https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
    Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Friday, 21st July, 2023, 03:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X