Climate Foundation Calls Belgian Manifesto By “3400 Academics” Alarmist, Pseudoacademic And Even Refuted By IPCC

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

What follows is translation of a guest contribution from the Climate Intelligence Foundation in response to a manifesto by 3400 Belgian academics who in lock-step claim “it is five to twelve”. According to them, draconian measures are necessary to save the world.

Hat-tip Dr. Hans Labohm

It’s an as outstanding rebuttal as you’ll ever find, and it follows below in English (NTZ has added the main-point titles in bold).
====================================

Terrifying climate propaganda

Irresponsible misuse of models

Science differs from religion because theoretical claims have to be verified with observations. If model results can predict measurements in advance (which is quite different than explaining them afterwards!) then you can say the model validated and then apply it in practice. But if that is not the case, then you cannot sell the model as truth and using it in practice is irresponsible.

Far more complicated than simple, linear CO2 relationship

The current climate model (‘IPCC model’) systematically yields highly overstated predictions compared to measurements and can therefore not be used to form climate policy – especially if that policy results in extremely high costs and destabilises vital parts of the energy infrastructure.
We are not just saying that. Already some of the most renowned scientists have preceded us (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Frederic Seitz, Robert Jastrow, William Nierenberg), including Nobel Prize winners (e.g. Ivar Giaever and Robert Laughlin). They also argue that the earth’s climate is far too complicated to be explained by a simple one-dimensional CO2 relationship.

Modern warming in large part natural

In the following we will briefly comment on the claims made by the Belgian signatories.

1. The earth is warming up. Worldwide, the average temperature has already risen by about 1°C (compared to the average temperature between 1850 and 1900).”

Yes, the earth is warming up. But that is business as usual. Earth’s history tells us that climate change has always happened. The geological archive shows very nicely that hot and cold periods have alternated regularly. This happened with sudden jerks and jolts, two steps forward and then one step backward.

We really don’t have to go back to the great ice ages. Archaeological information shows that around the year 1000 we knew the Medieval Warmth Period. Back then there was plenty of agriculture in Greenland! And in the golden age we were in the middle of the Little Ice Age. The great Dutch and Belgian paintings show beautiful ice scenes from that cold period. From the end of that small ice age, around 1850, we entered a warming period, of course again with fits and starts. Nothing special. These are the natural movements in the climate system. Soon the temperature will drop again. Ecosystems have always moved along successfully and will do so again now.

“Scientific evidence inconclusive…unsustainable”

2. Almost 100% of the observed warming is due to human activities.”

This certainty is shocking. This is indeed what the IPCC believes. However, the scientific evidence is far from conclusive. It is also highly unlikely that the natural movements would have stopped abruptly after 1850. And that since that time suddenly only man would be responsible for that warming.
But what caused the Little Ice Age, when glaciers expanded en masse? And what caused the Warm Medieval Period? As long as climate science does not have a good answer to such questions, modesty suits us.

Even today nobody understands exactly what the complex interactions are between the sun’s radiation, the dynamic cloud cover, the inhomogeneous earth surface, the energy-rich currents and the water vapour-rich atmosphere. Nor do we know exactly how much human CO2 contributes to global warming. The great certainty that the IPCC wants the world to believe that man is responsible is scientifically unsustainable.

Alarmists the true “climate deniers”…”have been seduced”

3. Already with the current warming of ‘only’ 1°C we are confronted with increasing and stronger weather extremes such as heat waves, droughts and floods. As global warming continues, extremes will become more common. Moreover, when global warming rises above 2 degrees, the chance that global warming will strengthen itself increases enormously. A kind of snowball effect that makes it even warmer.”

The authors and signatories of the letter appear here as the true climate deniers. Downright astonishing. Because the last three relevant IPCC reports (SREX, AR5 and SR15) clearly state that there are no discernible trends in droughts and floods. So there are no more or less than before, and they have not become worse or less bad. The IPCC does state that heat waves are more common in certain areas. But this is also tentative because in the US for example the dust bowl period of the 1930s still dominates all record books.

The fact that the authors allow themselves to be seduced by such exaggerations, which even contradict various IPCC reports, and suggests that their critical scientific view has been clouded by their activism.

CO2 as control knob is delusion

4. Limiting climate change and preventing self-reinforcing feedbacks is highly necessary. To limit global warming to 2 degrees, CO2 emissions must be reduced by about 25% by 2030 and by about 85% by 2050. To stay below 1.5°C, emissions must even be zero net by 2050. In order to be able to achieve this now, far-reaching and structural measures must be taken immediately – NOW. The longer we wait to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the greater the efforts will the needed to keep the warming (well below) 2 degrees.

The success of the climate movement is a simple message: “Human CO2 is the cause of global warming; global warming is causing a catastrophe; if we turn the CO2 knob, everything will be fine again.” But for the above claims there is no proof. How did we get these detailed certainties? The general public is rightly asking the climate movement for hard evidence. There is convincing evidence, also published scientifically, that climate models are hypersensitive to CO2 and therefore generate too much warming. Any future warming by CO2 will therefore be much more gradual than the models indicate. But the forces of nature can also cause a turnaround to cooling.

Bizarre and worrying demands

Since CO2 reduction is very expensive at the moment, and sun, wind and biomass are far from sufficient to supply modern societies with energy, we will have to work on future technologies with which an (ideologically desired) CO2 reduction might become affordable. Nuclear energy is the most likely option. Strangely enough, Belgium plans to close all its nuclear power plants and replace them with gas power plants. This cannot be explained in the context of CO2 policy, and it is bizarre and worrying that nothing is said about this in the open letter. If the authors are really serious about CO2, they should be making a massive plea for keeping the existing nuclear power plants open for as long as possible.

Paris allows emissions to keep rising

5. Current policy measures fall far short of what is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 emissions are still increasing worldwide, so we are not emitting less, but more and more every year. The opposite of what needs to be done. Moreover, the proposed policy measures are still miles from what is necessary to drastically reduce emissions, and that applies at local, Belgian, European and global levels. With the proposals currently on the table, the world is heading for more than 3°C warming by the end of the century. That may sound little, but the consequences are enormous.”

The fact that CO2 emissions are still increasing worldwide was simply agreed on in the much applauded Paris Climate Agreement. All countries were there. China and India can and will continue to emit more CO2 until 2030.

Gigantic costs, with literally no impact

If we still insist on CO2 reduction for ideological reasons, we should not close the relatively clean power plants in Western Europe, but the many polluting power plants in Asia. China, for example, is going to greatly expand its polluting coal-fired power stations and turn them into an export product.

What we in the Netherlands and Belgium contribute to CO2 is miniscule, but reduction will cost many hundreds of billions of euros. For example, if we in the Netherlands achieve the target of 49% CO2 reduction by 2030 (more than the authors of the open letter propose), it would result in 0.0003 degrees less warming by 2100 – negligible and immeasurable. And if Belgium closes its nuclear power plants, there would be no other choice but to rely on fossil fuels. That is the reality!

0.05°C less warming for $1 TRILLION per year

6. Action against climate change is much more economically advantageous than not taking action. In the longer term, the costs of inaction are much higher than the investments to reduce emissions. Doing nothing leads to enormous costs, including damage from floods, storms and forest fires. Extreme droughts and resulting food shortages can cause social unrest in many countries and lead to global migration. The transition to an emission-free society, on the other hand, is economically much more advantageous and even creates additional jobs. Moreover, the direct subsidies for fossil fuels worldwide amount to more than 500 billion dollars annually. This amount, or even only part of it, would, for example, facilitate the transition to a carbon-neutral society.”

These are highly dubious claims. The claim that doing nothing will entail much higher costs is but very questionable. The cure can be worse than the disease and we believe that current climate policy is a typical example of this. Bjorn Lomborg calculated, for example, that if all countries honour their voluntary commitments under the Paris Agreement, the temperature effect in 2100 will be only 0.05 degrees Celsius. This is also negligible. According to Lomborg, the policy is already costing USD 1000 to 2000 billion a year, mainly as a result of reduced economic growth. This is a major problem for developing countries. They are still working hard to bring their citizens up to the same level of prosperity as we have in the West.

Green economy in fact leads to net job losses

The suggestions that climate policy will create extra jobs are also misleading. Of course, you create jobs if you put hundreds of billions of public money into the energy transition. However, the question is how many jobs are lost elsewhere and what the net effect is. Experience in Germany and Spain shows that green jobs are extremely expensive jobs and therefore harm the economy. So it is scientifically all very embarrassing what is being claimed here.

Confused academics

7. Knowledge and technologies needed to drastically reduce CO2 emissions already exist. It now requires foremost the political courage to take the necessary structural measures and to fully commit to the transition to a society without greenhouse gas emissions. After all, the transition will only be possible if, among other things, the supply of renewable energy is rapidly and strongly expanded, buildings become power stations instead of energy guzzlers, mobility is reformed, deforestation is prevented here and elsewhere and trees are planted where possible, and if the emissions caused by the enormous livestock population are also tackled. These investments also offer the opportunity for positive change in many other areas. For example, cleaner air and sufficient food and drinkable water for everyone.”

Here climate change and environmental issues are completely mixed up. The confusion caused by these two problems is considerable. Many people who say they are very concerned about climate change actually mean that they are very concerned about the natural environment, such as soot and fine particles in the air and plastics in the oceans. From a historical perspective, the great forces of nature seem to play a prominent role in the change of the earth’s climate, yet in the deterioration of the environment, man is undoubtedly dominant.

Two final comments from the Foundation:

Lost scientific independence “extremely worrying”

a) The greatest value of a scientist is his or her independence. We see that scientists are becoming increasingly financially dependent on government and industry. Political and commercial interests have become an increasingly important part of research. As a result, many scientists have lost their independence. The Belgian manifesto makes this painfully clear once again. That is extremely worrying. Are there still independent teachers to be found today?

The history of science tells us time and again that scientific progress has never gained from consensus, but from stubborn scientists who dared to question existing concepts. It is in the interests of science and humanity that these dissidents do not become silenced, as is currently the case with the IPCC, the public media and commercial lobby groups.

Skepticism is the basis of all scientific progress. People who no longer doubt and are convinced that they are right, do not ask questions but argue. That’s why we aren’t making any headway in the climate debate.

Child being misused by alarmists

b). In Belgium, the climate movement has now also started using children for their ideological cause. A rather peculiar strategy. What children need to learn is to take a critical look at the facts. So what is happening now goes against everything that education should stand for. We are increasingly seeing children being abused to achieve goals.

Who remembers that washed ashore refugee boy on the beach, an image that was frequently used by refugee organisations, or the asylum boy who had a microphone pushed under his nose with TV crew chairman Dijkhoff, or the crying Lili and Howick in the NOS news, etc.? Anyone who wants to be proved right by putting children at the front of their causes is morally reprehensible. Teachers who work in this manner should be deeply ashamed.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

29 responses to “Climate Foundation Calls Belgian Manifesto By “3400 Academics” Alarmist, Pseudoacademic And Even Refuted By IPCC”

  1. DMA

    I like this well thought out and relevant response to the mostly unsupported motivational propaganda but even this response is predicated on the acceptance of the hypothesis that human emissions control the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This hypothesis is falsified. If atmospheric CO2 is not responsive to our emissions ( https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ ) and global temperature is not responsive enough to CO2 content to be detected ( Wallace et.al 2017) the whole argument over “climate action” is moot.

  2. Dr Roger Higgs

    Global warming is history. It ended 3 years ago, in Feb 2016 – see NASA chart 6, Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change, here …

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Warming had nothing to do with CO2. It was driven by the recently-ended solar Grand Maximum (1937-2003, peak 1991), ignored in IPCC’s self-serving house-of-cards computer ‘models’ (assumptions within assumptions; garbage in, garbage out). The Grand Maximum’s effect on Earth surface air temperature was delayed about 25 years, by our vast ocean’s thermal inertia (yes, IPCC ignored that too) …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325805849

    As cooling proceeds over the coming months and years, the AGW faithful (AGW was never more than a mere BELIEF) will abandon the cause in droves as the awful truth becomes obvious even to them: the IPCC Emperor has no clothes.

    2019 is the turning point in the whole ghastly Orwellian AGW charade. Goodbye man-made global warming, and good riddance United Nations IPCC …

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329880738

    1. Yonason

      Never underestimate the dedication of a true believer. Temperatures could drop several degrees, and they will not readily abandon their cult. But, when they eventually do slink away, it won’t be until they have found yet another cause to invest their misdirected energies in. And, yes, it will be at least as crazy, harmful and “morally reprehensible” as ever.

    2. Kenneth Richard

      Goodbye man-made global warming, and good riddance United Nations IPCC …

      They’re not going away any time soon. They got a win with the CFCs ban in the late 1980s – even though the ban has done nothing to the size of the ozone “hole” decades later*. No matter how much evidence pours in, they’re still gonna believe that a 1 part in 10,000 change in CO2 concentration over the course of a century is what causes climate chaos. It’s unfalsifiable.

      *Ball et al, 2018
      https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/1379/2018/
      Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60° S and 60° N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60° S and 60° N. We find that total column ozone between 60° S and 60° N appears not to have decreased only because of increases in tropospheric column ozone that compensate for the stratospheric decreases. The reasons for the continued reduction of lower stratospheric ozone are not clear; models do not reproduce these trends, and thus the causes now urgently need to be established.”

    3. SebastianH

      Yeah, just like you guys told the world after the 1998 El Niño or in 2008 … surely the third time you wish for cooling it ought to come true.

      Regarding the article:
      „They also argue that the earth’s climate is far too complicated to be explained by a simple one-dimensional CO2 relationship.“

      No climate scientist is saying that it’s a simple linear connection, but this is how skeptics perceive it. Leaves only one conclusion, skeptics can’t go beyond simple relationship and mark everything else as too complex to understand/model.

      @Kenneth: the reasons for the ozone thing are pretty clear. Search for Chinese companies braking the law regarding the use of ozone depleting chemicals. And again, calling something a belief and trying to paint a change in variables as small that is rather profound is not a winning strategy. Comments like those in this thread make skeptics appear like you probably don’t want to be seen as.

      I’ll switch back to reader mode as you guys clearly don’t want opposition and prefer to talk amongst yourselves. Have fun, maybe some other person will emerge who is brave enough to stay for more than a few comments after reading your replies 😉

      1. Kenneth Richard

        Yeah, just like you guys told the world after the 1998 El Niño or in 2008 … surely the third time you wish for cooling it ought to come true.

        Yes, we know that Pierre made a cooling prediction about 10 years ago that doesn’t look like it’s going to pan out. I don’t know who else the “you guys” might be referring to. Do you think that it helps to bring this up incessantly? Do you need to be reminded about your “guys” (i.e., the UN) track record?

        https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0?fbclid=IwAR2w1QItwW0H5Nwb6tAHK-IOnR5QvUESLB72MvnzZy2–l0xpHQV6cJlwOc

        @Kenneth: the reasons for the ozone thing are pretty clear.

        Flashback 2007: Scientists Reveal They ‘No Longer Understand How Ozone Holes Come Into Being’

        Scientists don’t understand how ozone holes come into being. But – thank our lucky stars – SebastianH does.

        Comments like those in this thread make skeptics appear like you probably don’t want to be seen as.

        I am truly could not care any less than I do about what nasty pejoratives you can conjure up in response to my reference to the lack of clarity in ozone “hole” cause and relative attribution.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    3400 Belgian academics … Strangely enough, Belgium plans to close all its nuclear power plants

    When 3,400,000 academics from all over the world become active and insistent that nuclear plants be built by the 100s, I will believe they are serious about this issue.
    I will still think they are wrong about CO2.

  4. Macha

    Check out this link https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/greenpeace-says-it-shut-its-offices-due-to-block-on-bank-account-1987414

    India says anti coal charity not in its best interests to bring poor out of poverty.

  5. Adrian E.

    It seems to me that there is a certain shift in the narrative. In the past, doom and gloom was something more abstract about the future. Now, it is claimed that we already live in hell – draughts, storms, extreme weather – and this hell is going to intensify further. It looks as if a PR strategist has told them that people don’t care enough about the future, so scare stories about the present should be told. But the effect is probably rather the opposite (though many will be silent for fear of being called a „denialist“). While it is difficult to assess the plausibility of risks associated with predicted temperatures in 2050 or 2100, it is patently obvious that we don’t live in the kind of hellish world that is described. According to any objective worldwide measures, e.g. agricultural output, the situation is improving rather than deteriorating. There are no objective criteria according to which the climate in 1850 or the 70es was „better“ than the present one. There were storms and local droughts in the past, and they still exist, but no increase has been noticed, as the IPCC recognizes. Therefore, it is also not very plausible that there will be apocalipsis if the slight warming trend continues a few decades.

    I personally think that in the long run greenhouse gas emissions should probably be limited and reduced – with sensible measures, not with hasty actions dictated by panic. But that is motivated by the idea that with much higher concentrations, the conditions could become very different from what they are now, not by the absurd idea that we allegedly already live in a climate catastrophe.

    My impression is that climate alarmists have become much more unhinged recently, and I don’t fully understand the reason for this development. Of course, already in the past, they frequently contradicted the IPCC and went much further in their predictions of doom than most scientists would support, but in the past, this was mostly about extreme predictions – and predictions are something uncertain anyway. Now, they don’t even shy away from extreme claims about the present that are patently wrong any more.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      My impression is that climate alarmists have become much more unhinged recently, and I don’t fully understand the reason for this development.

      Because they’ve cried wolf so many times that they’re getting tuned out. And because the “cure” – more wind and solar and higher energy prices – has not been resonating. More and more communities are saying no to pocking their landscapes with massive steel and concrete contraptions that break down every few years. So they’ve become desperate. Expect more of the same in the coming years. These people don’t handle it well when they’ve been shown to be wrong.

    2. Yonason

      “I personally think that in the long run greenhouse gas emissions should probably be limited and reduced” – Adrian E

      Not necessary, especially considering the benefit of increased CO2 for crop growth, and just generally greening the planet. Increased CO2 would be a good thing. And, even if it caused the world to warm a bit, that would also be beneficial overall, as were past warmings (we aren’t out of the last ice age yet). Besides, CO2 probably isn’t even causing the slight warming we’ve seen.

      Otherwise, I think you’ve got the scam artists figured out.

    3. Sidian

      Now what a lovely balanced view you have there. I like it very much.

      The question of reducing CO2 in the future is one of much importance. We should? Based on what exactly? It might be much more profitable and safe for the planet to maintain a certain level of CO2, especially since sinks seem to outweigh the production for quite some time. If CO2 continued to decline without our interruption for another glacial cycle, there might be no civilization. It would be rather hard to start an agriculture if CO2 dropped close to or below 150ppm. The problem is that we can’t really expect the science community to objectively research that subject, so there’s currently very limited data available. And the question is, in my oppinion at least, quite fundamental.

      The reduction you mentioned is already happening on a global and quite massive scale. Basically speaking our main CO2 producers is energy and food production. It’s also responsible for a sizeable chunk of pollution.

      Cultivated meat is already available in stores in some countries and bound to arrive to all by 2020-2021 depending on where you live. By 2030 it will most probably eliminate nearly all traditional meat, because it’s better on every front. On top of being safer, antibiotic-free and cheaper it’s also environmentally friendly and vegan /meaning no animals were harmed to create that meat/, so it’s bound to take the markets by storm. That’s how free market works.

      Fusion energy is a heavily researched topic and so are MSR reactors lately. A combination of the two, which will probably become our main source of power by 2040-2050 will eliminate nearly all carbon emissions from electricity and heat generation. On top of that energy from those two is far, far cheaper than anything we have today including nuclear /and not even mentioning solar or wind/. There’s currently no data on peak power production capability of fusion and there’s little chance MSR reactors can be used that way, so we’ll probably use some fossil fuel based plants to cover the peaks /gas most probably/. What’s interesting is that I have a strong feeling we’ll stick to wind for emergencies, because the new kite-based wind generators are quite portable, can be set up in a matter of hours and work everywhere with similar efficiency.

      The problem with IPCC and almost all the AGW community is pesimism. There’s so much going on in science these days it’s hard to even keep track. I remember a quote from one of the google geniuses, who said, that between 2001 and 2099 we’ll experience 21.000 years of progress from a perspective of a 20th century person. It’s hard to imagine we won’t come up with solutions that actually work way before we destroy the world even according to the most alarmist part of the community.

      1. Yonason

        “Cultivated meat is already available in stores in some countries and bound to arrive to all by 2020-2021 depending on where you live. By 2030 it will most probably eliminate nearly all traditional meat, because it’s better on every front.”

        Please check your facts.
        https://www.foodandwine.com/news/wagyu-beef-vegan-lab-just

        “However, seeing as no cultured meat brands are currently on the market, in many ways, this announcement creates more questions than answers. Foremost, how do we even know that the renowned quality of Wagyu beef can be replicated in a lab? Is simply working with Wagyu cells enough to recreate the Wagyu beef experience? And even if it is possible, what sort of timeline are we looking at for such an ambitious goal?”

        Anyone who has ever grown cells in a lab knows that most do not prosper without some form of serum addition, and the only way to get it is from the animals themselves. And even with the addition, those cells are a far cry from what they are in their source. There are so many nutrients that cannot be produced except by the animal itself, like for instance animal fat. It’s really quite healthy, and no vegetable substitute is as good.

        Sadly, most people aren’t aware of all that’s involved. And if you give them something that looks and vaguely tastes like meat, and won’t make them sick for years, you can probably get away with it.

        Bottom line, the more processed a food is when it doesn’t have to be, the worse it is for you. I have no doubt that this is true of cultured meat.

        Your correct about CO2, though.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57W3ZhOAkAE&feature=youtu.be&t=1446

      2. Tom Sash

        To Sidian 3

        “Cultivated meat is already available in stores in some countries and bound to arrive to all by 2020-2021 depending on where you live. By 2030 it will most probably eliminate nearly all traditional meat, because it’s better on every front. On top of being safer, antibiotic-free and cheaper it’s also environmentally friendly and vegan /meaning no animals were harmed to create that meat/, so it’s bound to take the markets by storm. That’s how free market works.”

        As already noted by Yonason, the market availability and viability of cultured meat is a huge unknown. Besides that, the alarmism against animal meat and its production and consumption is almost as unscientific and religiously intolerant as the CO2 debate itself. Billions of people worldwide are in energy poverty and want to consume more energy and therefore energy consumption will continue to grow. And billions of people worldwide are in meat poverty and want to consume more meat. They do so as they come out of poverty, therefore meat consumption will continue to grow.

        The nutritional value of meat is really, really hard to beat from vegetable sources alone.

        Animals take advantage of non-tillable land as well as cultivated food sources. They provide humans with meat, fats, leather, wool, thousands and thousands of cosmetic products and nutritional supplements. There are many reasons to sing their praises.

        https://www.cfact.org/2019/02/01/livestock-key-to-global-sustainability/

        https://www.sustainableag.co.uk/whats-really-behind-the-plant-based-diet-agenda/

        https://www.sustainableag.co.uk/anti-animal-agriculture-narrative-blame-it-on-daisy/

        https://www.sustainableag.co.uk/alternative-protein-more-plants-processed-food/

        China alone slaughters over 500 million hogs a year to provide for their domestic consumption… and that does not include imported pork products. The idea that by 2030, just 11 years hence, lab meat will change the market buying habits of billions of people and the habits of suppliers satisfying that demand is, IMHO, delusional.

        And, IMHO, the idea “that is how free market(s) work”, i.e. to accomplish a complete change of industry and consumers in 11 years, is just as delusional. Where is the massive demand for “lab meat” that could possible fulfill such a projected future voluntarily?

        Free markets, unless forced by government mandates and elitist edicts, will continue to supply massive amounts of meat products to satisfy the massive demand for these products, ever more efficiently.

        1. Yonason

          Nice job!

          1. Tom Sash

            Oops. I made a typo. The text should read: China alone slaughters 500 million hogs a year…

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Typo corrected. Please feel free to comment here any time.

          3. Yonason

            @Tom Sash 6. February 2019 at 4:10 AM

            LOL – I thought that seemed a tad extreme. Typos happen. Still very nicely done.

      3. John F. Hultquist

        Cultivated meat is already available in stores in some countries and bound to arrive to all by 2020-2021 depending on where you live. By 2030 it will most probably eliminate nearly all traditional meat, because it’s better on every front.

        This is one of those things that may happen to an extent, but very minor in the next few years, 2020-2021. At the current time the cost is great and the techniques rudimentary.
        Further, in parts of the world, pasture is the agriculture choice because of the slope, soils, and climate.
        Perhaps we will know more by 2050.
        However, the world is supposed to end in 12 years.

    4. tom0mason

      Adrian E,

      My impression is that climate alarmists have become much more unhinged recently, and I don’t fully understand the reason for this development.

      Because yet another date will be missed, 2020. The UN-IPCC pinned it’s totalitarian ideas on that date, then HAD to move it after their non-event in Poland. Their next date 2030, hopefully everyone who signed-up will fail with that too.
      So ramp-up the scary stories. Ramp-up the frighteners, release the green vests of the Soros indoctrinated, try and panic governments to the UN’s preferred action, and to hell with truth.
      The UN-IPCC is wagering on nobody realizing the planet’s getting cooler before 2030, cooling as CO2 levels continue to rise. And rise it will, till nature and not man decides what level is enough.

  6. John F. Hultquist

    Adrian wrote:
    I personally think that in the long run greenhouse gas emissions should probably be limited and reduced . . .

    In the long run Carbon Dioxide emissions via human activities will peak, plateau, and decline, but not before about 2040, and only then with the building of many nuclear power stations. This does not mean that CO2 as a part of the atmosphere will decline. In any case, I personally think {a WAG} a level between 800 to 1,000 ppm of CO2 will be fine.

  7. RickWill

    It would be interesting to see this list showing qualification, work attainment and age.

    One of the issues confronting the coal based industries is finding young people to replace the ageing workforce. Coal is so demonised in academia that people now coming through the education system would never consider a career in an industry reliant on coal.

  8. sasquatch

    It is negative two F now and tonight’s low will be negative twelve.

    The rest of the week will have daily highs in the negative single digits with nightly lows of negative 24 F.

    What part of cold don’t the Climate Change Alarmists in denial understand?

    The winter is proving to be quite normally cold and at times colder than usual. The cold set in the last week of September, it remained cold for three weeks.

    There was enough warmth to plant all garlic. You plant garlic in the fall, always. A straw mulch over the top ground prevents winter kill.

    There was about ten days of good weather, it has turned cold since then and hasn’t really let up in any way.

    It takes some time to sink in, you don’t want it to be as cold as it is, but that is how it is.

    It takes time to learn things the hard way.

    Climate Alarmists won’t admit they are wrong

  9. Andre

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (Channel 4 UK)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

  10. Klimastiftung nennt ein belgisches Manifest von „3400 Akade­mikern“ alarmistisch, pseudo-akademisch und sogar widerlegt durch das IPCC selbst – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  11. Refutation of the the Belgian climate manifesto by the Climate Inteligence Foundation. | Watts Up With That?

    […] English Translation shared from NoTricksZone ~ctm […]

  12. Refutation of the the Belgian climate manifesto by the Climate Inteligence Foundation. - Sciencetells

    […] English Translation shared from NoTricksZone ~ctm […]

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #347 | Watts Up With That?
  14. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #347 - Sciencetells

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close