Petition to the President
Feb 27, 2017 Guest Post by David Holland
Dick Lindzen has sent to President Trump a letter and petition signed by some 300 scientists and experts (H/T Anthony Watts). The petition is for the US to withdraw from the UNFCCC. I had some difficulty accessing it but eventually located a pdf of the letter and the petition itself here.
I'm sure Dick speaks for many BH readers as well some of our MPs. Even at the high water mark in 2008 only a little over half of British voters thought humans were responsible for most global warming and less than half thought it a pressing problem. Recent opinion polls now show that barely 10% of the public regard climate change as a serious concern. Few can now dispute the global agricultural benefits of increased carbon dioxide concentration, but in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments.
Hopefully when Parliament debates the Grand Repeal Bill some of our smarter MPs will push to dump any directives requiring reductions in carbon dioxide emissions or support for the UNFCCC.
Reader Comments (404)
Phil Clarke says:
That's an ironic quote on this forum. Care to discuss Yamal?
Feb 28, 2017 at 2:18 PM - Phil Clarke:
And of course the Paris Agreement was agreed unanimously by all countries, and recently achieved the 55% needed for ratification.True - but why is that relevant?
Feb 28, 2017 at 9:00 PM | Robin Guenier
I think the Paris Agreement is wonderfully relevant, now that it will not be ratified by the USA, and US Funding for Climate Science and the UN's IPCC may come under intense scrutiny. With fresh revelations about Karl, and the International con trick that Climate Science is, especially with Elections in European countries with growing scepticism about the EU and Climate Science derived policies, who knows what else 2017 will deliver?
Paris will be remembered by Political Historians as Peak Climate Science Stupidity.
The Montgolfier Brothers demonstrated flight with a Hot Air Balloon to King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette at Versailles in 1783 (whatever happened to them?) Paris witnessed the deflation of the Hot Air Scam in 2015. Hopefully those who witnessed it will fare better than King Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette
"A petition like this is basically an appeal to authority"
Em this is different from logical argument.
The Fallacy of argument from Authority does not apply here, cos such authority petitions are not logical proofs, but rather a call saying "Hey Mr President we think you can look at this"
.............. And is purely a response to previous Alarmist authority petitions saying bunk like :
"Hurry up, Mr President, hurry Up, Paris is the only way to go, 97% of scientists believe CAGW is the only explanation" etc
In an analogy to the Emperor's New Clothes
Phil is aiding Mann and Gleick in their role as suit makers ..Who gather a bunch of courtiers and say "Their is no other way, this suit is fantastic"
Now David Holland is the small boy who says "hey stop" and gathers other courtiers to make a counter petition to say
"No, there is no consensus ... a lot of courtiers also can see that this suit is false
..so listen to us as well Emperor Trump, so you can do the right thing for the people"
................................................................
Similarly it is not ad hominem to question the provenance of petition signatories.
We know we can find masses of flaws when Climate Alarmists put up their petitions
...but I guess we just wouldn't be so rude about it.
"Oh engineers aren't allowed" Tosh
It's Lintzen's petition and he can choose whoever he likes as members.
Expertise is not determined by having a job at University, and engineers with practical experience may well have a lot of expertise.
Likewise there are a lot of people with high academic titles whose manner and prediction record show very little expertise.
stewgreen, but Climate Science is relying on a falsified 97% Consensus lashed together by Cartoonist, John Cook.
It is important to remember how relevant proper Academic Qualifications are in Climate Science, but only when it suits Climate Science. Their honesty and integrity is infinitely adjustable, just like their data, results, predictions, history, interpretations, recommendations and conclusions.
And didn't John Cook refuse to share his data?
Regards
Mailman
And didn't John Cook refuse to share his data?
Regards
Mailman
Feb 28, 2017 at 11:59 PM | Mailman
That is how he earned so much money and respect in the world of Climate Science experts, by adopting their methodology.
Monty
These good old boys don't seem like no librals to me.Neither did George W Bush's pals Enron down there in Hoostun.
The Climate change industry is a multi trillion dollar Enron created carbon trading scam .
http://www.scrapthetrade.com
And didn't John Cook refuse to share his data?
No, it's here.
Heh, Ken, that's when it all fell apart, when it could actually be looked at.
============
And of course the Paris Agreement was agreed unanimously by all countries, and recently achieved the 55% needed for ratification.True - but why is that relevant?
David Holland's thesis is that action on climate change does not enjoy much popular support; yet this agreement was (eventually) signed unanimously. Even, if as seems likely, the US pulls out, it will still mean action is taken by, um every other country in the world.
Even, if as seems likely, the US pulls out, it will still mean action is taken by, um every other country in the world.
Mar 1, 2017 at 11:21 AM | Phil Clarke
Why will any of them bother? Politicians are learning that Climate Science is toxic.
If we're so concerned about qualifications or published works on climate science here, why is Phil Clarke -whoever he is - worthy of any consideration?
That Monckton guy has published loads.
Clarke is a nobody.
Phil Clarke said: "[The] thesis is that action on climate change does not enjoy much popular support; yet this agreement was (eventually) signed unanimously.
Signed by establishment politicians. That is not evidence of "popular support".
And didn't John Cook refuse to share his data?
No, it's here.
Mar 1, 2017 at 11:07 AM | ...and Then There's Physics
However, for a more honest opinion, of the type of deceit and bullying, try here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/john-cooks-consensus-data-is-so-good-hell-sue-you-if-you-discuss-it/
However, for a more honest opinion, of the type of deceit and bullying, try here:
Don't be silly.
aTTP, don't be so dishonest. It is not going to look good on your CV, should your current Employers lose faith in your Climate Science expertise and professional integrity.
For esmiff's interest:
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/the-future-of-energy-opportunities-and-challenges/
David Holland in this thread:
"...in the UK and elsewhere we are seeing the chronic health damage resulting from the dash to diesel subsidised by foolish governments."
"I agree that diesel is less explosive (it can still cause fires) but NOX and particulates are a serious risk to health and the dash to diesel like VF replacement of incandescent lamps shows the folly of governments thinking that they can drive technology."
David - Please can you cite your specific health references - particularly for NOx? Thanks
Strange how sniffy Phil Clarke is about non-Climate Scientists expressing opinions about Climate Science, when Ken Rice can join forces with this lot, on behalf of the IPCC, and aTTP is desperate to defend John Cook. Is there a pattern or common link that aTTP has not mentioned?
"Clarity of meaning in IPCC press conference" by well known Climate Scientists:
Peter Jacobs, Hunter Cutting, Stephan Lewandowsky, Miriam O'Brien, Ken Rice & Bart Verheggen
aTTP continues to cash in on Climate Science hypocrisy
not banned yet
Thanks, excellent link. We're all on board the Paris Express now, even Exxon. It's why I don't have as much faith in Trump following through with his campaign opinions as others.
This is especially interesting
"The world already has powerful tools for meeting global energy demand while reducing emissions. One is natural gas".
The reality of climate change related policies has been a shift from coal to gas. To the great benefit of the oil industry.
https://nccleantech.ncsu.edu/electric-plants-shift-from-coal-to-natural-gas/
Mar 1, 2017 at 1:34 PM | e smiff
But they are all more reliable than Unreliables, and that is what the human race needs, to survive and prosper.
Trump's budget announcements on 13th March SHOULD give some clear guidance as to what should become of Mann's Holy Hockey Stick, and all who retain faith in it.
Then Scientists can concentrate on more useful stuff.
It is obvious to anyone reading these comments that Phil Clarke (whoever he may be) is what is generally known as a 'warmist' and is mightily rattled by the letter from Prof Lindzen and its signatories, many of whom are distinguished scientists with impeccable credentials. That many of the are retired is, to me, the best feature as we can be sure that they are showing their true beliefs as they do not have to fear the vilification and hounding experienced by many in the field who are still employed and dependent on their salary to live.
To Mr Clarke I would give the old advice, when in a hole, stop digging.
Golf,
Apologies, I had interpreted your earlier comment about deceipt and bullying as objecting to it. I hadn't appreciated that you were encouraging more of it and that you planned to lead by example.
Mar 1, 2017 at 11:21 AM - Phil Clarke:
Not so, Phil. The Paris Agreement exempts the 'developing' countries (there are about 140 of them, responsible for over 65 percent of global emissions) from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce those emissions: LINK
diesel , petrol or elec - its the sheer number of vehicles which causes massive structural bankruptcy withen national accounts. PS - anyone try to light a primus with diesel, it is not very pleasant
Not so, Phil. The Paris Agreement exempts the 'developing' countries (there are about 140 of them, responsible for over 65 percent of global emissions) from any obligation, legal or moral, to reduce those emissions:
I'm guessing you're including India and China in that definition? Check out their NDCs.
The exemption (UNFCCC Art 4.7 and PA Art 4.4) is unaffected by the INDCs and both India and China are classified as developing countries.
Mar 1, 2017 at 2:38 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
You chose to lie with Mann, John Cook, Lewandowsky, Hot Whopper's Miriam O' Brien etc. Reread your own thread on Gergis 2016. Would you like samples of your bullying tactics collated, or do you think it is normal practice in Climate Science, and continue in your ignorant Denial about it?
Your judgement and integrity has been seriously compromised. I hope you think it was worth it.
Do you want to get honest about what you really think about Mann's Hockey Stick now? You did not seem keen before.
Disingenuous, are you saying that India and China are making use of the exemption? Their NDCs say otherwise.
Golf,
Apologies, but I don't rate highly the views of anonymous people on the internet who choose to rant about me. I'm not quite sure which bit of my Gergis thread you particularly disliked, but feel free to particularly dislike it, if you wish.
Mar 1, 2017 at 4:55 PM | ...and Then There's Physics
If you are happy with your endorsement of Cook's 97% Consensus, Mann's Holy Hockey Stick, assorted drivel by Lewandowsky, and Gergis, then your honesty and loyalty to a lost cause is wonderful, even if your judgement is poor.
Perhaps you could explain to Lying Phil Clarke that non qualified Climate Scientists are allowed to make judgements about honesty in Climate Science, just like President Obama and the Pope did.
not banned yet at 1:22 PM,
You can google it same as me, but you would have to been on another planet not have heard the many reports in the MSM. But for instance see here:
https://phys.org/news/2015-09-nox-gases-diesel-car-fumes.html
"In Britain alone, known NO2 emissions have been estimated to kill 23,500 people every year, according to aerosol science professor Ian Colbeck of the University of Essex, southeastern England."
No, they don't - neither India's nor China's NDCs express an intention to make absolute GHG emission reductions.
"Climate Science seems to have nose-dived due to lack of evidence."
Witness Willard Watt's & Golf Charlie 's sudden disinterest in the instrumental termperature record in Pruitt's home state
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/02/would-you-buy-used-buffalo-robe-from.html
Clarke is entitled to his opinion. It will not make any difference to the disintegration of global warming alarmism. The shoddy science is doing that all on its own.
Robin, it would be amazing if they did, they do however set out action plans - in the case of China to reduce the rate of growth and then reverse it by 2030. I'd be the first to agree that this is inadequate given the scale of the challenge, however implying that all the developing nations are using the small print to do nothing is misleading.
I'm sorry Phil but I fear you don't understand. In pre-Copenhagen and pre-Paris negotiations (I know - I'm a boring person who followed the detail) China and India fought hard to ensure they retained their rights under Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC. Not only did they prevail but they actually strengthened their exemption. And the result is reflected in their INDCs. Here for example is an extract from China's:
It couldn't be clearer: the burden of reduction action falls exclusively on the West. Yes, China indicated their emissions would peak around 2030 - but they didn't say at what level. And a peak is not a reduction.
vvussell, I have always been disinterested in Climate Science, and remain uninterested in your juvenile attempts to attract attention.
Mar 1, 2017 at 5:57 PM | Phil Clarke
I fear you are not appreciating that the Paris Agreement is not sustainable, and very non-renewable. Insulting President Trump has probably helped.
The global warming industry is following a life cycle just like every other industry, and in exactly the same way, there is a time lag which means that different countries are out of phase with others by several years.
I estimate that in the UK there is an increasing majority who no longer believe the alarmist rhetoric and wish to see the CCA being scrapped. Many people are aware that the science is unprofessional and deeply flawed. I would say that support for carbon dioxide emission reduction has peaked and the industry is in decline. The trend is towards scrapping green regulations and green taxes on consumer fuel bills. I sense that the Met Office is now distancing itself from exaggerated claims because they see the direction of travel.
I get the impression that the US may have more uninformed public as a percentage of population and there is a time lag, however, Trump may short circuit this by simply getting rid of legislation and claiming that it was misguided, or worse. The legislative process in the States will be more able to expose wrong doing by the scientific community and I believe that this will be a rich vein to mine. Scientific scandals exposed in the States will accelerate the decline in the UK.
Meanwhile, in Germany, electricity costs are increasing by a factor of 4.5 and this is not sustainable. We have a failure of climate science on the one side and a failure of green policies on the other. These could prove to constitute the perfect storm for UK politicians. The current ones are not too convinced to begin with.
Once the industry begins to crumble, all time lags will disappear and climate change alarmism will collapse very suddenly with a financial catastrophe for all related investment.
Note to Bish.
I do believe that climate change science is now under unsustainable attack and this is a good time to host your site again, even though you have provided a service by allowing it to remain active. Your insightful posts were a good rallying point and I think the time is right for you to resume that role.
I'm sure that I can never fully appreciate the effort that takes but I do think you have a valuable role to play between the science of J Curry, the magazine of WUWT, the review of GWPF. BH provides a semi scientific/semi political forum which is so badly needed. Please consider your contribution in the knowledge that it does make a difference. We do need to get the science and political response closer to reality.
The consensus theory of CAGW had a USP: pay up or fry. Now that the climate science consensus denies that there will be CAGW, and even denies that they ever said there would be CAGW, the theory has lost its USP. In many ways what the science now says is no longer important.
Robin,
Robin - I used the word 'action'; you then moved the goal posts, apparently for you only absolute emissions reduction counts. That is unrealistic: most of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Western nations, China overtook USA as the largest emitter only a few years ago and on average an American is responsible for twice the emissions of a Chinese citizen, 8 times the average Indian and 40 times the average Bangladeshi. So simple natural justice dictates that the West takes the lead.
In fact, both Chinese coal consumption and CO2 emissions have declined every year since 2013.
click
So, not nothing.
Budgie, Willaim Connolly put it best:
Phil Clarke- I take it that this is the Connolly of Wikipedia fame?
Obvs
He is the man who allegedly re-wrote getting on for 6,000 pages of climate related science pages on Wikipedia, then.
Not an activist, obviously.
Phil Clarke, and your associates, where is your evidence that global warming, climate change or any other version of catastrophe resulting from carbon dioxide emissions has any truth whatsoever?
Please note that GCMs have not been validated.
Phil
You know I have a great deal of respect for you, and for your persistence here, but you're shifting the goal-posts. You've lost the argument on NDCs (and on your "unanimous" point re signing the Paris Agreement). Just as I have learned from you over the years, you could learn from Robin Guenier (if you want to).
The Climate Scam, if I may call it that purely for shorthand reasons, is the output of the massaged temperature records and GCM predictions. The former are outrageous and the latter are absurd. The scientific method alone, eliminates the models as believable indicators. Observation does the rest.