SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Ride the Tiger with CD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stuffbug who wrote (273658)10/2/2019 6:44:57 PM
From: cessnastreet3 Recommendations

Recommended By
longz
Rocket Red
russet

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 312345
 
Off Topic After Trading Hours

Interesting find stuffbug - well worthwhile to read the whole letter - according to these reputable scientists:

There is no climate emergency

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.



https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf



To: stuffbug who wrote (273658)10/2/2019 8:22:17 PM
From: onepath3 Recommendations

Recommended By
LoneClone
Pianoman1997
Terry Maloney

  Respond to of 312345
 
"Of the 400 signatories, only a handful have a background in climate science, with the majority being writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field.Climate Science Deni

A coalition of climate science denial groups is gearing up for a European media blitz later this month, in an apparent bid to derail efforts to set an EU-wide “net zero” emissions target, documents obtained by DeSmog show.

Plans for a self-styled “European Declaration” include press conferences in Brussels, Rome and Oslo and a letter to be sent to leaders of EU and UN institutions, scheduled for mid-September.

The letter claims to have “400 independent Climate Scientists and Professionals” signed up so far.

Some notable signatories are part of a trans-Atlantic network of thinktanks pushing for environmental deregulation post-Brexit, and have a history of climate science denial. A number of former employees of the network’s member organisations are now staffers in Boris Johnson’s cabinet.

Titled ‘There is no climate emergency’, the group’s letter claims that current changes in the climate are “to be expected from the cyclic behaviour of the climate system” and that there is “no proof” that carbon dioxide is a major cause of global warming.

Another of the group’s “urgent messages” is to “strongly oppose” an EU carbon neutrality goal, a policy that was blocked by Poland and three other member states in June and is set to be discussed again at a European Council meeting in October.


Robert Brulle, Professor of Sociology at Drexel University and an expert on climate science denial, told DeSmog the campaign looked like a panicked response to recent high-profile efforts to highlight the climate crisis:

“The rise of the Extinction Rebellion movement, and the immense popularity and influence of Greta Thunberg, are having a significant impact on media coverage of climate change and concern about this issue. I would suspect that the aim of the campaign is to blunt the impact of these climate advocacy efforts.”

“The talking points are stale and patently scientific nonsense. That isn’t critical. The point would be to keep the ‘contested’ nature of climate change alive.”

Geoffrey Supran, a Research Associate at Harvard University who gave evidence to the European Parliament in March on oil giant ExxonMobil’s historic promotion of climate science denial, said he thought the move was an attempt to distract from the various upcoming efforts to increase action on climate change globally, such as the UN Climate Action Summit at the end of the month:

“These people are the rhetorical equivalent to the kid in the classroom screaming ‘Look at me! Look at me!’ They’re desperate for attention.”

“As always, they presumably hope to muddy the waters of public and political discourse on the climate crisis. To feed the echo chamber of sympathetic right-wing media and blogs, and to prey on naive and unsuspecting journalists who may be tempted to exercise false balance in their climate coverage.”

Coordinated effort The campaign is being spearheaded by a new Netherlands-based climate science denial group called the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), launched in April with funding from Niek Sandmann, a multimillionaire real estate developer.

The group’s co-founder Guus Berkhout, an engineering professor who began his career at Shell and set up the Delphi Consortium in the 1980s to develop new exploration methods for the oil and gas industry, told DeSmog that interest in the campaign had been “overwhelming”.

Berkhout said there were plans to hold press conferences in European capitals and that the effort was being “expanded to a World Climate Declaration”. He declined to offer further details or comment.

In addition to CLINTEL, the international organising group includes some well-known figures from the climate misinformation world, including:

Professor Richard Lindzen, former Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute (USA) Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition (Australia) Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Speaker at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (Germany) Professor Jeffrey Foss, Contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Canada) Jim O’Brien, Chair and Co-founder of the Irish Climate Science Forum (Ireland) Terence Dunleavy, Founding Chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition (New Zealand) In an email seen by DeSmog, Berkhout explains that “signatures are being collected from persons who give a valuable contribution to the climate debate and are recognised as such”. He goes on to boast that there are “already a lot of great names on the list”.

Of the 400 signatories, only a handful have a background in climate science, with the majority being writers, engineers and geologists with no direct expertise in the field.

In addition to the Cato Institute‘s Richard Lindzen, the list features numerous figures from US-based libertarian groups, including Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Charles Battig and Willie Soon from the Heartland Institute, which provides a total of 12 signatures alone. All three organisations are members of the Atlas Network, a Koch-funded international umbrella body of free-market groups.

UK affiliates of the network include the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and the Taxpayers’ Alliance. A number of former employees of these groups are now working in Boris Johnson’s government.

Taxpayers’ Alliance founder Matthew Elliott is reportedly advising new Chancellor Sajid Javid, whose Conservative leadership campaign he ran, while former employee Chloe Westley has joined Boris Johnson’s Number 10 team. International Trade Secretary Liz Truss has appointed two special advisors from the IEA and ASI.

UK support The UK’s principal climate science denial group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson in the run-up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, is also well-represented in the campaign.

At least four members of its Academic Advisory Council feature in the letter’s signatories, and other contributors to the GWPF have also backed the “declaration”.

One is Northumbria University Professor Valentina Zharkova, who gave a lecture to the group last year claiming that climate change is caused by natural solar cycles. A paper Zharkova co-authored in June on the same subject was criticised for containing “basic errors” and an investigation into how it came to be published was launched by the scientific journal that printed it.

CLINTEL also has close ties to the GWPF. Berkhout wrote an essay for the UK group last year insisting that climate change was purely a natural phenomenon. And in February, the GWPF published an article by its Dutch counterpart that said: “Yes, the Earth is warming up. But that is business as usual. Earth’s history tells us that climate change has always happened.”

The following month GWPF director Benny Peiser spoke at a gathering in Amsterdam where CLINTEL announced its upcoming launch.

At that event, Berkhout admitted: “in this whole audience, apart from the organisation and a few brave ones, I don’t see young people. So the first thing we are going to do is talk with the young people.” CLINTEL currently has a youth wing called “ Young Clintel”.

The GWPF did not respond to a request for comment.

Other UK signatories include directors and former directors of lesser-known oil and gas companies, as well as five Fellows of the Geological Society, a professional body representing Earth scientists.

In addition to the EU “net zero” emissions target under consideration, planned “climate strike” protests and the upcoming UN Climate Action Summit, the media offensive may also, given its European focus, be timed to coincide with a crunch government meeting in Germany on how the country will meet its 2030 emissions target, set to take place on 20 September.

German signatories to the letter include a spokesperson for the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), which a Der Spiegel investigation earlier this year found had been working closely with the insurgent, far-right Alternative for Germany party to campaign against action on climate change.

Image credit: European Parliament/ Flickr/CC BY–NC–ND 2.0






To: stuffbug who wrote (273658)10/3/2019 12:55:02 PM
From: LoneClone3 Recommendations

Recommended By
ayeyou
onepath
Terry Maloney

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 312345
 
OT: As with the guy in that video that was recently posted here, it is obvious that you are doing the exact opposite of science, starting from the premise that there is no anthropogenic global warming and then presenting evidence that supports your premise while ignoring the much larger and more robust body of evidence that contradicts your position.

Please ask yourself why it is so important to you that there not be global warming, to the extent that it makes you promote junk 'non-science' while avoiding actual science. I am very curious as to why you are so threatened by the idea.

I would love for there not to be anthropogenic global warming, but because I start from an objective rather than an ideological viewpoint, weighing all the evidence leads me to the conclusion that it is real and is an existential threat to our civilization.

For the sake of Ralfph and the board I will do my best to restrict my reaction to your dangerous nonsense, but it would be much better for everyone if you didn't post it here in the first place.

LC



To: stuffbug who wrote (273658)10/3/2019 4:30:11 PM
From: Pianoman1997  Respond to of 312345
 
OT CO2 is plant food so it’s good

what a load of... If I throw 1000 bananas ( human food) in your living room and I wait a few weeks, it will be good for fruit flies but will it be good for humans? I cannot see as very serious whoever signed that trash



To: stuffbug who wrote (273658)10/3/2019 6:00:58 PM
From: marcos3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Anchan
onepath
Terry Maloney

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 312345
 
There is no Planet B.

If we're listing basics in bold, let's be sure to get that one front and centre.

Sure there are natural factors, of course plants get their carbon from the air, yes warming is probably slower than particular parties have predicted, no doubt the science has room for improvement [as always with science], and some do mistake weather events for climate at times

We don't see anyone arguing otherwise here ... so what's the plan - To somehow conflate a state of no 'emergency' requiring immediate 'panic and alarm' with a guaranteed eternal state of no concerns whatever, therefore Drill Baby Drill And Pump That Toxic Black Goop Across Anybody's Front Yard Ya Like And F. Them!?

... well excuse me, but i think there's more to consider in the situation ... can't accept the last sentence at all - if you step it down a little [actually a lot], and say that 'affordable' [which means what exactly?] energy is one of the important factors, then why would they ignore the desirability of getting that energy from sustainable sources? ... why would they ignore the possibility of conservation? ... why would they completely ignore the price to be paid by our gggg-kids if/when their DBDAPTTBGAAFYYLAF.T policy f.s up the planet?

Climate change aside, our gggg-kids will consider us demented savages for burning up millions of years worth of fermented dinosaur juice to push thousands of pounds of metal vehicles around the roads just to pick up trivial amounts of trivial crap we mostly don't need ... what's left by their time will quite likely have far higher value as raw material for needed petrochemicals

I see low quality argument put forward on both sides of this issue ... as on most, usually, unfortunately ... i would have expected better from you, who have typed some highly sensible stuff on stocks ... and really, it's a bit rich to get prissy on LC and onepath, who happen to get faced with this post during trading hours ... i likely would have responded too, was just busy at the time ... btw, imho, there are all sorts of points of view on the matter, it's not an Either-Or situation whether you're talking the current science or the current politics

Careful who ya blame for what [broad and perhaps obscure analogy] - youtube.com