Wednesday, 24 August 2022

CLIMATE SCEPTIC SCIENTISTS RAISE THEIR VOICES

 Declaration saying “There is no climate emergency” trends on Twitter – Greenies have meltdown

Chris Morrison, Daily Sceptic, 23 August 2022



The increasing numbers of scientists prepared to break ranks with the ‘settled’ politicised science of climate change would suggest various causes for their scepticism other than bungs from oil companies.

Professor Dr. Knut Loschke studied crystallography, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science. In the course of a long career he founded an IT company, and is an honorary professor at the University of Technology, Economics and Culture in Leipzig. As part of his work at the University, he deals with the energy industry and climate change. He served the German Bundestag as an expert in ‘Artificial Intelligence’. But Professor Loschke is annoyed, very annoyed, as he demonstrated in this recent Facebook post.
 
I’m sick. Or, to put it even more clearly: I’m fed up with permanent and increasingly religious climate ramblings, fantasies about the energy transition, worship of electric cars, horror stories and doomsday scenarios from Corona to conflagrations and weather disasters. I can’t stand the people who shout into microphones and cameras, or print it in newspapers every day. I suffer from having to see how science is turned into a whore of politics.
 
It seems that scientists like Professor Loschke are fighting back, tired of being abused and often ignored for scientific work that fails to conform to a fashionable political narrative. Last week, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the ongoing World Climate Declaration (WCD), now signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. Headed by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, the WCD says there is no climate emergency. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound science. Our story about the WCD attracted enormous interest on social media and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. Enormous efforts were made to trash the Declaration, and many of the people who signed have been personally abused.

The WCD is signed by no less than 235 professors drawn from a wide variety of scientific and other academic disciplines. Thirteen of the 28 WCD lead supporters are professors, seven out of the 10 Greek signatories likewise, and 11 out of the 24 from Norway. The climate scientist and writer Willie Soon recently listed a number of the academic disciplines that are helpful in studying the changing climate. They include: astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochemistry, paleoclimatology, glaciology, oceanography, ecology and history. It was not a complete lists, he added. The breadth of experience from scientists and non-scientists found in the WCD list encompasses most, if not all of these areas of study. People with thousands of years of cumulative practical experience are calling for the study of climate science to be less political and for governments’ climate policies to be more scientific.

Another German scientist, the distinguished experimental physics specialist Professor Hermann Harde, recently dismissed the idea that humans control the climate via carbon dioxide emissions as an “absolute delusion”. He warned politicians that it would be an irresponsible energy policy to continue to ignore more serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on climate than previously thought.

We recently reported Harde’s comments and referred to the fact that for years German politicians have been able to make virtuous green noises by banning nuclear and fossil fuel production, while relying on an unstable Russia to make up the energy short fall. The sheer stupidity of that policy is likely to become apparent in Germany this winter. Already problems are mounting, with the German newspaper Handlesblatt reporting that the megawatt price of electricity jumped last week to a new high in daily trading. A megawatt hour cost €563, compared to just €23 a year ago. Of course, the ruinous policies behind Net Zero are responsible for this.
 
In the U.K., the spike in international gas prices, and an increasing reliance on unreliable renewables, means the consumer energy price cap could be raised to £6,000, an amount that is almost certainly beyond the means of a significant portion of the population. Under these conditions, a cold winter could kill thousands of people.

Before he died, the acclaimed physicist Professor Freeman Dyson – a signatory of the CWD – noted that the “people who are supposed to be the experts and claim to understand the science, are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence”. Professor Richard Lindzen, a WCD lead signatory, evidently agrees, having said that the current climate narrative is “absurd”, even though trillions of dollars currently says it is not. It remains to be seen what will run out first – the money, or the tolerance of citizens to become poor under command-and-control, hard-left Net Zero regimes.

For years, green activists and journalists have been able to hide behind the obvious canards that the science surrounding the human involvement in climate change is ‘settled’, and that 99% of scientists agree with that statement. The arrogance behind this political stance is on display with a tweet from the Guardian writer George – “Don’t mention the coral!” – Monbiot, who made an oblique reference to the recent WCD article.

As we have reported before, 48 Italian science professors recently wrote to their Government, stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”.
 
Activists such as Monbiot regularly traduce ‘deniers’ for their supposed links to funding from oil companies (although he recently dismissed the suggestion that the Guardian’s lavish funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation influences its coverage in the slightest). Particular ire is often reserved for geologists, since they are much in employment demand from companies that seek to extract mineral riches from the Earth. Geology also provides an important insight into the paleoclimatic record. Geologists are often sceptical about claims that humans are causing sudden changes in the climate. One might say that they have seen it all before. The only scientist who went to the moon on Apollo was a geologist called Harrison Schmitt, and his position is that there is “no evidence” that humans cause climate change.

The increasing numbers of scientists prepared to break ranks with the ‘settled’ politicised science of climate change would suggest various causes for their scepticism other than bungs from oil companies.

9 comments:

  1. Climate change can get worse faster or we can gain control over our energy emissions slowing down damage to our climate.



    https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/facts-about-climate-emergency



    Why is 1.5°C important?
    The world will see serious climate impacts at 1.5°C. But after that it gets much worse. The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C is…


    the difference between 70% or 99% of coral reefs dying.
    double the likelihood that insects, vital pollinators, lose half their habitat.
    ice-less summers in The Arctic Ocean once per century or once per decade.
    1 meter added in sea-level rise.
    6 million or 16 million affected by sea-level rise in coastal areas by the end of this century.
    Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every catastrophic prediction about the climate and the state of human society, pollution, starvation, acid rain, ocean acidification, ocean levels and everything else catastrophic that had been predicted by scientists since 1970 for the following decades up to this day have gone wrong.

      Delete
    2. NO they haven't. Flooding and drought in the United States have followed the global warming science. Extreme droughts and extreme floods.

      Delete
  2. Let's be clear the IPCC has not and cannot made any predictions like those you have written. This is just scaremongering and is not supported by the evidence. Look at all the scientists who have signèd this declaration. Some have lost their jobs by speaking out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then you are mistaken about the IPPC. The IPPC is a reviewer of science material. Made of 1000s of peer reviewed science papers. That is a huge treasure chest of knowledge for how the climate works. And it all comes down to climate sensitivity. That understanding is programmed into the computers and comes very close. Enough so, that they know we are going to warm with more co2.

      Delete
  3. Scientists are sceptical of catastrophic climate change. In fact, catastrophic climate change has no scientific backing and no scientific proof. The more time passes the more scientist find scientific indicators that move the dial away from CO2 and towards other forcings.

    Seeing that science is negating climate catastrophism and scientists jumping off the CO2 bandwagon, the globalist cabal has roped in an undersized, politically abused girl raised on a vegan, lettuce, and cabbages diet, who does know anything about physics and chemistry, and tells students of the western democracies to play truant on Fridays and not to eat meat. This is just a rehashed religion of medieval times.

    The CO2 molecule has now been scientifically absolved of any guilt of causing or possibly causing catastrophic climate change. The proof is in Greta Thunberg.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your premise is quite laughable. Its very clear that humans have caused climate change on earth.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report

    According to the WGI report, it is only possible to avoid warming of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) or 2.0 °C (3.6 °F) if massive and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made.[1] In a front-page story, The Guardian described the report as "its starkest warning yet" of "major inevitable and irreversible climate changes",[7] a theme echoed by many newspapers[8] as well as political leaders and activists around the world.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


    Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do accept that humans can cause a change in the climate, but the important issue is how much influence they have. In other words how big a change they can make compared to natural factors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have been over this before. If it weren't for humans, the earth would be cooling.

      Delete

Climate Science welcomes your views/messages.