Jump to content
Seeker

11,000 scientists declare climate change emergency

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-50302392 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-emergency-scientists-emissions-letter-climate-change-a9185786.html%3famp

 

for anyone who isn’t brainwashed and looked at basic science knows this is a scam to make changes in society like bringing in the smart grid as its ‘clean energy’ whilst ignoring emf radiation factors which is a real environmental threat. Also agenda 21/ 2030 etc etc

 

Where has this 11,000 figure come from? The whole 97% of scientists figure was rubbished away so how have they managed this one? 

 

If you believe in this humans causing climate change via co2, then please don’t bother commenting, there is another part of the forum for that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific method isn't about the numbers game.

 

That is just as bad as the representatives of a religion declaring it has so and so many adherents so it must be the true way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, serpentine said:

The scientific method isn't about the numbers game.

 

That is just as bad as the representatives of a religion declaring it has so and so many adherents so it must be the true way.

True, problem is the typical fluoride head won’t understand 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm one scientist who doesn't believe the Co2 bollocks for one second. You're right to ask where these 11,000 scientists come from and what exactly do they mean by 'endorse'? Did they just click on something? If that outrageous 97% claim is anything to go by this is just more blatant manipulation of data. The 97% one was based on something like 77 out of 79 scientists, a similar size study to those quoted by shampoo adverts. Make of that what you will!

 

I conducted my own survey years ago, around the time that Al Gores dreadful film come out. It was also about the time David Bellamy wrote a great article about it called 'Global warming - what a load of old poppy cock!' - he hasn't been on TV much since then. Every science student I asked either thought it was nonsense, or admitted that they didn't know as they hadn't looked into it properly. Only 1 chemistry student thought it was real, I don't know how many I asked in total - probably 50+ in total. Most of the science lecturers felt the same, one of them actually gave a special one off lecture on why it was all nonsense. Then I asked politics students the same question, they went bat shit crazy at me just for asking the question. They all knew better than me you see, of course it's real, politics degree's must teach better science than physics degrees.....

 

Just today I was talking about it in with colleagues, all of whom have science degrees and work full time directly applying science. Not one of them accepts the co2 link to warming, some see it as a distraction from all the other pollution we are creating, which we actually should be worried about. Like all the microplastics in everything for instance.

 

Another one of my colleagues has recently published a paper on sun spot activity which suggests that we are entering a new grand solar minimum, which in turn suggests a new mini ice age. The usual idiots have critisised their paper for daring to suggest anything other than a warming climate!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seeker said:

Where has this 11,000 figure come from? The whole 97% of scientists figure was rubbished away so how have they managed this one?

 

The trouble is that numbers and statistics can always be 'massaged' and reinterpreted to give any result that you desire.

 

Like with the "97% of scientists" claim, which was based on a result of 77 out of 79 scientists. Wow, 79 scientists polled, but that result is then extrapolated to supposedly reflect on 'all' scientists.

 

Now '11,000 scientists' sounds like a lot, but then again exactly how many scientists are there on this planet? If there was only 11,500 then maybe this would be impressive. But lets say there are 250,000 scientists in total, that's just 4.4%, which doesn't sound very impressive or convincing does it?

 

It's the same reasoning why I take no notice of opinion polls in the media. Surveying 1000 people in the UK on their voting intention does not accurately reflect the opinion of the 44m+ people eligible to vote in the UK, so headlines like "Tories polling at 44% in polls" mean nothing to me.

 

Just like the climate data itself, facts and figures are being manipulated and twisted in order to reshape public opinion via the mainstream media.

 

 

On an aside, I haven't seen it myself, but a colleague at work was telling me about this new BBC show presented by David Attenborough. After telling me how 'stunning and beautiful' it was (which I am in no doubt it probably is), I asked him "does he mention climate change at all?", to which the reply was, "yes, quite a few times".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about all the scientists who dispute these fake "climate emergency" indicators? I forgot, they are "deniers" and must not be given any credence.

 

And what is the primary problem according to the 11,000 "eminent" scientists - "The growth of human populations and overconsumption."

 

Dr Thomas Newsome, from the University of Sydney said, "That could mean there are areas on Earth that are not inhabitable by people."

 

So what is their solution?

 

"Immediate steps should be taken that could make a major difference. - Population: The world needs to stabilise the global population."

 

"The idea of trying to influence human population growth is highly controversial and has been deemed too hot to handle by UN negotiators."

 

But, the authors say "that looking the other way is no longer an option." (They must reduce the population.)

 

The only "positive" Dr. Newsome cited was, "that there is now a slight decline in birth rates at a global level."

 

"However they believe that the growing, global protest movement offers hope" - hope that the public will demand their own destruction.

 

(Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. - The Georgia Guidestones)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

Another one of my colleagues has recently published a paper on sun spot activity which suggests that we are entering a new grand solar minimum, which in turn suggests a new mini ice age. The usual idiots have critisised their paper for daring to suggest anything other than a warming climate!

I love you man 😆 very interesting about the politics students! There’s no way piers corbyn hasn’t told Jeremy corbyn about the climate change hoax, but he needs the votes so says the narrative. 

 

And yeah i saw we we are going into a cooling phase on earth and there weren’t many dark spots on the sun, explains why it’s bloody freezing! There’s also the graph showing dark spots on the sun correlating to the temperature of the earth, which I’m sure you know of already. Whenever people at work say it’s really cold already I say well we are going into a cooling phase because of the suns lower activity which is measured by dark spots and it actually makes sense to them. Only one said ‘well what about global warming’

thank you for the reply though, really interesting! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Velma said:

What about all the scientists who dispute these fake "climate emergency" indicators? I forgot, they are "deniers" and must not be given any credence.

 

And what is the primary problem according to the 11,000 "eminent" scientists - "The growth of human populations and overconsumption."

 

Dr Thomas Newsome, from the University of Sydney said, "That could mean there are areas on Earth that are not inhabitable by people."

 

So what is their solution?

 

"Immediate steps should be taken that could make a major difference. - Population: The world needs to stabilise the global population."

 

"The idea of trying to influence human population growth is highly controversial and has been deemed too hot to handle by UN negotiators."

 

But, the authors say "that looking the other way is no longer an option." (They must reduce the population.)

 

The only "positive" Dr. Newsome cited was, "that there is now a slight decline in birth rates at a global level."

 

"However they believe that the growing, global protest movement offers hope" - hope that the public will demand their own destruction.

 

(Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. - The Georgia Guidestones)

Agenda 21/ 2030 is all I have to say. And of course, why the lower birth rate? Epicyte gene in gmo corn Anti fertility agents in vaccines (Both bill gates is responsible for) emf radiation from our mobile phones in our pockets destroying the sperm. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 thousand ((( scientists ))) agree 

 

I heard this bullshit on the radio this morning

 

And of course the three problems they need to address are food ( eat bugs and maggots ) , energy ( invest in rothchild nuclear ) and population reduction ( white people having less children ) 

 

And for no reason at all Hitler came to power 

......

 

.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

The trouble is that numbers and statistics can always be 'massaged' and reinterpreted to give any result that you desire.

 

Like with the "97% of scientists" claim, which was based on a result of 77 out of 79 scientists. Wow, 79 scientists polled, but that result is then extrapolated to supposedly reflect on 'all' scientists.

 

Now '11,000 scientists' sounds like a lot, but then again exactly how many scientists are there on this planet? If there was only 11,500 then maybe this would be impressive. But lets say there are 250,000 scientists in total, that's just 4.4%, which doesn't sound very impressive or convincing does it?

 

It's the same reasoning why I take no notice of opinion polls in the media. Surveying 1000 people in the UK on their voting intention does not accurately reflect the opinion of the 44m+ people eligible to vote in the UK, so headlines like "Tories polling at 44% in polls" mean nothing to me.

 

Just like the climate data itself, facts and figures are being manipulated and twisted in order to reshape public opinion via the mainstream media.

 

 

On an aside, I haven't seen it myself, but a colleague at work was telling me about this new BBC show presented by David Attenborough. After telling me how 'stunning and beautiful' it was (which I am in no doubt it probably is), I asked him "does he mention climate change at all?", to which the reply was, "yes, quite a few times".

 

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" as an anonymous 19th Century writer said (it wasn't Disraeli or Mark Twain). Throw an autistic 16-year-old Swedish truant into the mix as a figurehead and, eh voila! You have a mass movement  which the gullible and terminally-baffled are only too eager to join. Wasn't it a group of scientists at a British university (East Anglia?) that were caught out fudging the numbers on this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

 

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" as an anonymous 19th Century writer said....  Wasn't it a group of scientists at a British university (East Anglia?) that were caught out fudging the numbers on this?

 

Well there's nothing wrong with statistics if interpreted intelligently ... when we do this we see there is no abnormal 'global warming ' no unusual change in sea levels  ...As you say they have been caught many times faking the numbers , that's the problem ....

 

As for scientists believing in global warming ....from that Independent   article the person behind this recent scare is an environmental scientist ...most of these scientists will be climate scientist both groups are employed by the government , or universities etc ... they want to keep their jobs!  Without this manufactured problem they would all be on the dole!

Edited by oz93666
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

Well, I'm one scientist who doesn't believe the Co2 bollocks for one second. You're right to ask where these 11,000 scientists come from and what exactly do they mean by 'endorse'? Did they just click on something? If that outrageous 97% claim is anything to go by this is just more blatant manipulation of data. The 97% one was based on something like 77 out of 79 scientists, a similar size study to those quoted by shampoo adverts. Make of that what you will!

 

I conducted my own survey years ago, around the time that Al Gores dreadful film come out. It was also about the time David Bellamy wrote a great article about it called 'Global warming - what a load of old poppy cock!' - he hasn't been on TV much since then. Every science student I asked either thought it was nonsense, or admitted that they didn't know as they hadn't looked into it properly. Only 1 chemistry student thought it was real, I don't know how many I asked in total - probably 50+ in total. Most of the science lecturers felt the same, one of them actually gave a special one off lecture on why it was all nonsense. Then I asked politics students the same question, they went bat shit crazy at me just for asking the question. They all knew better than me you see, of course it's real, politics degree's must teach better science than physics degrees.....

 

Just today I was talking about it in with colleagues, all of whom have science degrees and work full time directly applying science. Not one of them accepts the co2 link to warming, some see it as a distraction from all the other pollution we are creating, which we actually should be worried about. Like all the microplastics in everything for instance.

 

Another one of my colleagues has recently published a paper on sun spot activity which suggests that we are entering a new grand solar minimum, which in turn suggests a new mini ice age. The usual idiots have critisised their paper for daring to suggest anything other than a warming climate!

 

Hi Bob

 

Please could you tell us how the axial tilt of the planet can effect the amount of sunlight reaching the more Northern hemisphere once at the minimum tilt of 22.1 degrees I think is the official figure, we are said to be declining at a rate of .78 minutes per year meaning the ecliptic will be lower at the meridian and summers will get shorter and cooler as a result of this, this is never mentioned in the climate debate.

 

What might happen if the official minimum axial tilt is incorrect and the ecliptic declines further towards the equator or merges with the equatorial region?

 

What is your take on this?

Edited by The Apprentice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

Then I asked politics students the same question, they went bat shit crazy at me just for asking the question. They all knew better than me you see, of course it's real, politics degree's must teach better science than physics degrees.....

Why am I not surprised by this. 'Climate change' nee Global Warming, has been weaponized by politicians. It's a great vote-grabber, especially amongst the young, some of whom believe that they're going to be burned to a frazzle inside 12 years unless we do something to change the world. I don't pretend to understand the science, nor does the Holy Greta I suspect but, hey, it's a pithy slogan.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The world scientist alliance” Riiiiiiight....
 

I find it mighty suspicious that these articles started pouring out about an hour after project Veritas released the Epstein video. ...They are conjuring fear to distract people from their evil doings. And I fear there are a couple more facets to this agenda. 
 

They are handicapping farmers. They want farmers to forget everything they know about growing good crops. Traditionally a farmer would burn the left over leaves and organic material after a harvest. Well this “new research” is saying that burning is very bad because it releases carbon into the air rather than trapping it in the soil where it is useful. They are telling farmers to leave the previous harvest’s debris on the ground to decompose. (Even though this stifles crop growth and there is no data suggesting the decomposing matter ends up in the soil rather than the air.) 

 

Guess what else is bad now? Plowing, cultivating, and tilling. The new research says disturbing the soil releases CO2 into the atmosphere.  
 

The World Scientist solution? Feed the microbes that eat the plant matter in the soil.
 

...Well this is no revelation. That is why farmers put organic compost in their soil..to add nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur etc. naturally. Organic farmers will tell you that artificial fertilizers containing these compounds hurt the crop yield. But new science says, it is just about finding the right balance of these expensive and artificial chemicals. 
 

So now a “good” green farmer can not burn his old crops, he can’t disturb the soil, and is expected to buy some (I assume) Montesano brand of fertilizer that is just the right blend for the carbon producing microbes. 
 

Uggghh what a load of shit. They are tying farmers hands and getting them to poison their own soil. Let’s forget everything we’ve learned about farming from the beginning of time.....cuz 11,000 unnamed (World) scientists. 
 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Apprentice said:

 

Hi Bob

 

Please could you tell us how the axial tilt of the planet can effect the amount of sunlight reaching the more Northern hemisphere once at the minimum tilt of 22.1 degrees I think is the official figure, we are said to be declining at a rate of .78 minutes per year meaning the ecliptic will be lower at the meridian and summers will get shorter and cooler as a result of this, this is never mentioned in the climate debate.

 

What might happen if the official minimum axial tilt is incorrect and the ecliptic declines further towards the equator or merges with the equatorial region?

 

What is your take on this?

 

To be honest I've never come across this before, I thought the tilt was always about 23.5 deg but have now just discovered it changes very gradually over a 40000 year period from 22.1 deg to 24.5 deg. You're guess is as good as mine at this stage, I'll have a look into though as you've sparked my interest. It's amazing how much stuff I still don't know, I only discovered the name electret yesterday (an electric version of a permamant magnet!).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dawn said:

They are handicapping farmers. They want farmers to forget everything they know about growing good crops. Traditionally a farmer would burn the left over leaves and organic material after a harvest. Well this “new research” is saying that burning is very bad because it releases carbon into the air rather than trapping it in the soil where it is useful. They are telling farmers to leave the previous harvest’s debris on the ground to decompose. (Even though this stifles crop growth and there is no data suggesting the decomposing matter ends up in the soil rather than the air.) 

 

Guess what else is bad now? Plowing, cultivating, and tilling. The new research says disturbing the soil releases CO2 into the atmosphere. 

 

What gets me is the conflation between 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide'. And how both are being somehow presented as 'bad', as 'pollutants'.

 

I'm no scientist, but I did enough biology in science at school to learn that plant life absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releases oxygen into the atmosphere.

 

Humans and other animals need oxygen to survive. Plants and greenery need carbon dioxide to survive. We both need each other, its all part of the balance of nature.

 

I'll agree with your comments about farmers. Here in the UK we obviously have the whole Brexit thing going on, and 'Project Fear' stories about how we're all going to starve because we won't be able to import food from the EU. We seem to have forgotten about the farming and agriculture business in the UK, because for years UK farmers have received handsome 'subsidies' from the EU in return for limiting production. While on a train into Wales a few months back, I was astonished to see fields of solar panels in Shropshire, which would normally have been filled with crops, or been meadows for livestock to graze upon. I guess it is more lucrative to collect these subsidies from the EU and then rent out the land to house solar panels to 'sell' to the national grid. Rather than make an honest living through traditional farming practices.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

What gets me is the conflation between 'carbon' and 'carbon dioxide'. And how both are being somehow presented as 'bad', as 'pollutants'.

 

I'm no scientist, but I did enough biology in science at school to learn that plant life absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releases oxygen into the atmosphere.

 

Humans and other animals need oxygen to survive. Plants and greenery need carbon dioxide to survive. We both need each other, its all part of the balance of nature.

 

I'll agree with your comments about farmers. Here in the UK we obviously have the whole Brexit thing going on, and 'Project Fear' stories about how we're all going to starve because we won't be able to import food from the EU. We seem to have forgotten about the farming and agriculture business in the UK, because for years UK farmers have received handsome 'subsidies' from the EU in return for limiting production. While on a train into Wales a few months back, I was astonished to see fields of solar panels in Shropshire, which would normally have been filled with crops, or been meadows for livestock to graze upon. I guess it is more lucrative to collect these subsidies from the EU and then rent out the land to house solar panels to 'sell' to the national grid. Rather than make an honest living through traditional farming practices.

 


(Like) I’m out of reactions. 

Exactly. Plants keep carbon dioxide in balance. And everything new science is doing seems to undermine the growth of plants. 
 

That’s interesting about the solar panel subsidy. Come to think of it, eastern Washington State used to be almost entirely farmland and now a lot of used to be farms have giant wind power generators on them now. I imagine they are being incentivized in a similar manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

 

To be honest I've never come across this before, I thought the tilt was always about 23.5 deg but have now just discovered it changes very gradually over a 40000 year period from 22.1 deg to 24.5 deg. You're guess is as good as mine at this stage, I'll have a look into though as you've sparked my interest. It's amazing how much stuff I still don't know, I only discovered the name electret yesterday (an electric version of a permamant magnet!).

 

The existence of Earth's free nutation was predicted by Isaac Newton in Corollaries 20 to 22 of Proposition 66, Book 1 of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and by Leonhard Euler in 1765 as part of his studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies. Based on the known ellipticity of the Earth, Euler predicted that it would have a period of 305 days. Several astronomers searched for motions with this period, but none was found. Chandler's contribution was to look for motions at any possible period; once the Chandler wobble was observed, the difference between its period and the one predicted by Euler was explained by Simon Newcomb as being caused by the non-rigidity of the Earth. The full explanation for the period also involves the fluid nature of the Earth's core and oceans—the wobble, in fact, produces a very small ocean tide with an amplitude of approximately 6 mm (14 in), called a "pole tide", which is the only tide not caused by an extraterrestrial body. Despite the small amplitude, the gravitational effect of the pole tide is easily detected by the superconducting gravimeter.[4]

Because the earth is not a rigid body, the Chandler wobble should die down with a time constant of about 68 years[5]. Various theories have been proposed to explain why it still exists even though the earth has been around for much longer than 68 years (see below).

 

I think there is more to this and possibly why certain areas of earth become lasting deserts and the elite know when the next large movement is coming, it is recorded in every clinmb and their empirical books like the bible.

 

Because of the liquid nature of the earths core it can be effected by positive and negative flux from sun bursts, which could tilt the earth very quickly and if this does the ocenas are going to move over land where they are not now, the declining axial tilt is the result of this happening last time.

 

The elite are now preparing to secure the best places on the planet so they can survive and the rest will be wiped out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media is claiming asthma inhalers have a bigger carbon footprint than eating meat.

 

Is a new phase of conditioning.

 

Voluntary Euthanasia & soilent green next nothing would surprise.

 

Quote

Many people with asthma could cut their carbon footprint and help save the environment by switching to "greener" medications, UK researchers say.

Making the swap would have as big an "eco" impact as turning vegetarian or becoming an avid recycler, they say.

 

 

 

Quote

And at the individual level, each metered-dose inhaler replaced by a dry powder inhaler could save the equivalent of between 150kg and 400kg (63 stone) of carbon dioxide a year - similar to the carbon footprint reduction of cutting meat from your diet.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

The media is claiming asthma inhalers have a bigger carbon footprint than eating meat.

 

Is a new phase of conditioning.

 

Voluntary Euthanasia & soilent green next nothing would surprise.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011

 

 

So, is a dry powder inhaler as effective as the regular ones in controlling asthma? If not, I imagine the A&E departments will be chock full of gasping asthmatics before long. Anyone with any knowledge of medicine know the answer to this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you watch the temperatures of the 10.000 years climate curve then you cannot see any bad climate warming coming up, except for a repeatable and statistically plausible warm period. I wonder about what the old Romans did do to get their similar warm climate period. Too much donkey shit left over in old Rome in order to accelerate CO2 emissions?

 

I agree with some posters that the "climate change" is a huge business model and the sheep believe it again. 

002-temperature_swings_11000_yrs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bluebirdgr said:

I wonder about what the old Romans did do to get their similar warm climate period. Too much donkey shit left over in old Rome in order to accelerate CO2 emissions?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

So, is a dry powder inhaler as effective as the regular ones in controlling asthma? If not, I imagine the A&E departments will be chock full of gasping asthmatics before long. Anyone with any knowledge of medicine know the answer to this?

 

When someone is having a severe asthma attack, they rely on the spray to inject the dose into their lungs, so no definitely not everyone can use the eco dry powered stuff.

 

Fact is the mega cargo ships carbon emissions totally obliterate anything we do on land. But you dont hear about this.

Globalism is the main cause behind pollution, you wont hear them bringing that up.

They would rather put a guilt trip on asthma sufferers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×