Центральный Еврейский Ресурс
Карта сайта

Версия для печати


Ученые отвечают недоучившейся эко-активистке :"There is no climate emergency, say 500 experts in letter to the United Nations"



The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent this registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here’s the press release, here’ the list of 500 signees, and here’s the opening of the letter:
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.
Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation
Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:
1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that 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.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.
MP: What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”?
Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but those the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from the climate alarmists. For example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by the scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals will be ignored in 2019. In other words, it’s “deja vu all over again.”

А это само письмо :

From: Professor Guus Berkhout
guus.berkhout@clintel.org
23 September 2019
Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017, United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,
53113 Bonn, Germany
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in
climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European
Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are
unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of
trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies
pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied
access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine
concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class
scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. Such a meeting would be consistent
with the historically proven principles of sound science and natural justice that both sides should be
fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts how we bring about such a momentous joint meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands Professor Richard Lindzen USA
Professor Reynald du Berger French Canada Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand Jim O’Brien Irish Republic
Viv Forbes Australia Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada Professor Benoît Rittaud France
Morten Jødal Norway Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Rob Lemeire Belgium Monckton of Brenchley UK
Ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration
There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 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 the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while
politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation
to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
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 at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It 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 policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate 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, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
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, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

Mark J. Perry

Оригинал блога

Благодарим нашего читателя Homo semiticus   ,подсказавшего интересную тему
Опубликовано: 12-10-2019, 19:14
5

Оцените статью: 0
Если Вы заметили грамматическую ошибку, Вы можете выделить текст с ошибкой, нажав Ctrl+Enter (одновременно Ctrl и Enter) и отправить уведомление о грамматической ошибке нам.

Наивные ученые:для пипла главное не научные доказательства, а напор, пассионарность, призыв к действию!


Оценить комментарий: 0
удалить комментарий

Пипл, конечно, не в меру падки на истошные вопли недорослей типа Греты, но все равно очень хорошо и правильно, что 500 учёных таки не убоялись анафемы, и написали это письмо.


Оценить комментарий: 0
удалить комментарий

А зачем вообще "отвечать" недоучившийся активистке? Кто она? Как сказал Паниковский Шуре Балаганову: "Вы жалкая, ничтожная личность". Эта девчёнка вообще никто. Она психически больная. Ещё пройдите по психбольницам и послушайте пациентов. Отвечайте каждому из них. Пригласите их выступить в оон. оон и есть организация, рекламирующая психически и умственно неполноценных.
Психопатка кончит очень плохо. Когда сми перестанут о ней писать, у больной начнётся очень сильная депрессия. Она покончит своё существование самоубийством. Конечно, другие "активисты" начнут биться в истерике. Визжать, что её "затравили". Ну и виноват конечно Трамп.
Я не одобряю методы Гитлерюги в отношение психически больных, но .........


Оценить комментарий: 0
удалить комментарий

В итоге оказалось опять, что только президент ТРАМП прислушивается к своим ученным и не подается этой агитации, Кто планирует содрать с населения Земли огромные деньги. и придушить экономику в Европейских странах.


Оценить комментарий: 0
удалить комментарий

Уважаемый, Ефим в Далласе. Думаю вы не совсем правы. Это явно чей-то проект, но вот чей и какие задачи ставит мне пока не ясно.


Оценить комментарий: 0
удалить комментарий

Добавление комментария