Climate Change

[happy daze john in oz]

Des, the problem with the rivers and fish dying as they did can be brought home to the feet of most politicians.

Many will claim we are the driest continent on earth, but that is a Phurpy, we have billions, if not trillions, of liters of water that go to waste because no party is prepared to do anything about water harvesting.
Water from flooded areas could well be channeled to lower regions where it could be stored in dams, but we do not have the political will in this country to do anything about it.

The LNP would like to but cannot get consensus with the other parties.
Labor would but as they rely on the Greens for preferences will not do anything that may upset them and as far as the Greens go al they want is all the water to go to rivers only.

But in the outback on the way to Ayres Rock there is a place called Curtin springs, have been there, and the current owner was on radio.
His father began the cattle station there back in the 1800's, this guy is now 92, and as he tells it rain falls about one year in 8 and has done ever since the family moved there.
A natural cycle that has not changed in the past 150 years.

[Captain Kong]

I recieved this mail............................
.
3
2517 KA The Hague
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 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, continuous 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. The meeting will give effect to the
sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be
fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts about such a 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 Jřdal Norway Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Bob 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.

[Red Lead Ted]

Terry,
maybe the warm Waters around Alaska is coming from Hawaii.
The Big Island of Hawaii has big Volcanoes, the Big One , Kilauea is pouring None Stop super heated red hot lava into the ocean continually and has done for years, The Sea is Boiling heating up the ocean thi drifts north towards Alaska, and around the Pacific just like the Atlantic`s Gulf Stream,
It is also pumping out into the atmosphere huge clouds O sulphuric acid which also drift northwards towards Alaska in the prevailing winds,
It kills birds and in the hot ocean it kills fish. So I can understand the results of the actions of Kilauea on Alaska.
The biggest lake on the island of Hawaii has disappeared, why??? not global warming, Lava from Kilauea poured into the lake and the whole lot evaporated into a huge cloud of steam , not a drop of water left, it just filled up with lava,
Volcanoes world wide are doing similar tricks. Under sea Volcanoes are also heating up the oceans, and sending huge balls of methane gas up and into the atmosphere. A lot of that occurs along the West Indies and off Iceland.
That is why they make me pay Ł273 road tax on my little car. every year, so when they have enough they will stuff the pound notes into the Volcano and block it.
You have to see it in action to believe it. the Pacific Ocean boiling, I have seen it many times and will see it again next March. I go every two years.
I have been monitoring the climate world wide in person for many many years, and not from some one with an Ology in a class room.
In the South Pacific, El Nino happens every ten years or so, A stream of hot water crosses the Pacific from South America to Australia and it does kill millions of fish and sea birds including Pelicans etc, This was happening hundreds of years ago and has been recorded many times from old Sea Captains of sailing ships.
There is a little global warming but the earth is doing it, not my little car that only does less than 2000 a year.
Go and see it for yourself, , it is an awesome sight, doesn't cost that much.
Cheers
Brian

Brian, My mate you can dress it up any way you like, The earth is getting warmer that's fact and this is just one incident of climate change the ice caps are melting the Amazon rain forest is disappearing, There are to many incidents all over the world as a result of it, It cant be brushed under the carpet it has to be addressed the world has to stop or slow down carbine omissions by burning fossil fuel ETC,,,, Or I am afraid the end is Nye We have to look to the future for the sake of our Grand children they deserve a life just as we have Regards Terry.

[Tony Taylor]

I recieved this mail............................
.
3
2517 KA The Hague
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 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, continuous 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. The meeting will give effect to the
sound and ancient principle no less of sound science than of natural justice that both sides should be
fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts about such a 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 Jřdal Norway Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Bob 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.

It is in danger of becoming a vicious circle, yes we need CO2 for plants to flourish and in return they supply oxygen. How ever, if we continue to destroy forests faster than they can grow, then we are heading in the wrong direction, in a diminishing spiral down.

[Keith Tindell]

I watched the program last night Simon Reeve travelling the Americas, he was in Alaska , and flew up on to the glacier , with a women pilot who has been flying up there on a regular basis for 12 years, apart from an interesting program, she asserts the glacier is in serious retreat, and Reeve gets to see the evidence . Its available on I player, and these people he interviews are on the front line of the argument, kt

[Rodney Mills]

Reply to #195

Climate Intelligence Foundation[edit]Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made to law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies.[8] In late September 2019 the group produced an open-letter which stated that there was no climate emergency and repeated a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate.[9] A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading". The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists.[10]

SUMMARYThis letter presenting a short list of claims about climate change boasts a list of “500 scientists and professionals” who have co-signed it.The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change.*The letter claims, for example, that climate models ignore the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth. This is false, as many climate models simulate the response of vegetation to increased CO2—and the climate change it causes.And while some outlets described the co-signers as experts in climate science, most are not. As noted in an analysis below, a significant portion of the co-signers are either engineers or professionals in non-technical fields. Only 10 identified themselves as climate scientists.

Similar letters have sought to establish credibility with large numbers of co-signers in the past, but evidence is what counts in science. See all the scientists’ annotations in context.

You can also install the Hypothesis browser extension to read the scientists’ annotations in context.REVIEWERS’ OVERALL FEEDBACKThese comments are the overall assessment of scientists on the article, they are substantiated by their knowledge in the field and by the content of the analysis in the annotations on the article.

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:

This statement is unscientific. It ignores well-established understanding of climate and of what causes the climate to change. It makes cherry-picked statements, such as noting that some vegetation grows more with increased CO2 while ignoring the risks of serious damage arising from the climate change that is being caused by the same increase in CO2. The authors of the statement appear to be very unfamiliar with climate science: for example, they do not know that the amount of global warming we have observed is very close to the amount predicted by climate models.

Twila Moon, Research Scientist, University of Colorado, Boulder:

The letter contains direct lies and cherry picks information about carbon dioxide and climate change impacts that are designed to mislead. I am also concerned that many of those who have signed the letter are well known climate deniers and are not actively involved in direct research on climate change and its impacts.

Victor Venema, Scientist, University of Bonn, Germany:

The text is a masterpiece: next to the political opinions expressed, every single sentence is either wrong, insignificant or irrelevant for the question whether climate change is a serious problem for humanity. Given how old the “arguments” are, the authors are clearly not aiming to convince scientists and thus making science more political, while disingenuously claiming to be against that.

Amber Kerr, Researcher, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis:

Each of the six claims has some element of truth to it (e.g. there is not much evidence that global warming is already making hurricanes more frequent). However, all six claims are presented in a biased and misleading way, giving the incorrect impression that anthropogenic climate change is a benign or beneficial force overall, whereas scientists and economists have repeatedly concluded that climate change is a massive and urgent problem.

Giorgio Vacchiano, Assistant Professor, Universitŕ di Milano:

The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just random guesses). The last two statements are based on literature and common knowledge, but qualify as cherry-picking because they omit most negative effects of CO2 increase and warming (e.g. other clear trends in extreme events, damage to forests and crops by drought and heat waves).


There are many other scientist condemning the "letter" as "inaccurate", "Undocumented", "Cherry picked", "misleading", "False", "biased" and contains "out right lies" the scientists words not mine.

Regards, Rodney.

P.s. I found these comments on-line, a few comments below the "letter". I have posted these comments answering this letter before.

[Keith at Tregenna]

I did a quick search re; Professor Guus Berkhout

Fake News: l'Emergenza Climatica č una Fake News

K.

[happy daze john in oz]

Rodders, this is an example of the real problem, so many versions of what is going on.

Here in Oz, a country of extreme of weather and climate we have similar situation.
Scientists here are split, some say it is all man made, others not so sure and a small group who are convinced it is all cyclical.
In that group a retired chief scientist of Victoria who wrote an article explain how he had produced computerized figures to satisfy the needs of the then gov.

The media, the only source of information for many, will pick the article most likely to sell copy, and they will if needs be embellish any or all of it to suit their ends.

Here in Victoria over the past 40 years I have seen all manner of changes, but none that any one who has been here longer or the off spring of previous generations will say is any different to what has occurred before. In the 90's we had a ten year drought nothing new there, heat waves and at time extremely cold winters.
This is no different in the other states, it is a land of droughts and flooding rains.
Some droughts drag on as do some floods, along with heart waves and bush fires.
One of the real problems here though is that there are not so many long term records, the country as it is being just over 200 years oild.

I have no doubt there are some changes taking place but how much is man made, not sure.

What I do know is, like Kong travelling, I see many different weathers and climates. I talk with locals and as was the case in the last trip to Norway the people said nothing new here.

The argument will continue on both sides, but the fear is with many that the media will not tell them the truth.

[Harry Nicholson]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...test_Headlines

Another sign of instability in climate: Dengue arrives in Nepal, apparently the vector mozzies are moving into the hills. I caught dengue in Calcutta in 57 and stayed in my bunk, in darkness, for days.

[Harry Nicholson]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...kAYcJPDfIUC.01

It's become a war of financial interests. Powerful money will decide our future - it was ever thus.