Replying to the con-servationists

On the same day that Greta Thunberg harangued the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

For more detail, go here.

Of course, if you want to actually make progress against these people, you will need to show how there is more money to be made in opposing the climate agenda than in supporting it.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Replying to the con-servationists

  1. Rococo Liberal

    There’s oonly money to be made out of climate change by using the government to provide taxpayers’ dosh. If governments stopped giving money, then crony capitalists and rent seekers would have to move on to some other thing in an attempt to make money without adding value.

  2. An alternative way of making hefty profit without risk is what’s required.

  3. billie

    make progress against them?

    good luck tonight holding back the tide king canute

  4. Pyrmonter

    Steve

    Whatever else may be said for them, how do Alan Moran (economist and activist), Des Moore (bureaucrat and activist) and Campbell Rankine (tax lawyer), Hugh Morgan (lawyer turned businessman), find their way into a list of ‘scientists’? If the scope of ‘scientist’ is wide enough to include these men (worthy as they may be in their own fields), what possible objection can be taken to the authority of the feelpinions of the various ‘centres’ for ‘studies’ that employ any number doctorate-holders?

  5. Roger

    I must have missed this interesting report when it was reported on by the msm.

  6. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3185783, posted on October 16, 2019 at 2:36 pm

    Fair comment Pyrmonter, though the actual letter and related site material seems to refer consistently to “scientists and professionals”, i.e. they weren’t, strictly, claiming all to be scientists.
    I think they would have been better off having two separate lists, one of scientists and one of others. The way it’s done invites criticism. Which is a pity, because it’s obvious that there are lots of scientifically qualified signatories.

  7. Tim Neilson

    I must have missed this interesting report when it was reported on by the msm.

    Yes indeed Roger. Obviously neither of us spends enough time on “quality journalism” like reading Fairfax and tuning in to the ABC.

  8. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    Agreed. It is also a pity the letter couldn’t be a bit more temperate in tone: there are people on that list to whose authority I’d defer; but others, including Lord Monckton, who fit the bill for being the Right’s answer to the ratbag Left. Screaming at each other at 40 paces (or its social media equivalent) serves no purpose other than to alienate potential supporters, and often to discredit by association worthwhile arguments.

  9. Dr Fred Lenin

    Now who are you going to believe? 500 non conformist scientists or one well coached emotional retarded child ? For the stupid climateer hpocrites there is mo argument ,the propaganda kid wins ,bcked up by 73 out of 10,000 “scientists who get taxpayers funds the science is settled innit?
    73 who agree beat 500 who dont every time ,leftist rules ,How dare you disagree.

  10. Iampeter

    Greta isn’t arguing the science, she is making a moral case.
    She is basically calling on all you so-called altruists to live up to your stated moral code.

    No amount of discussions about parts per million of CO2 is going to even come close to countering her.

    Conservatives and so-called skeptics are losing by default and they don’t even realize it. As always.

  11. struth

    “For some reason” is where she lost me.

    You’d have to be living under a rock to not know the reason.

  12. struth

    Good lord.
    I can’t get though it.
    Arguing the fucking science with lefties?
    ou defund them

    Guturres is on a mission to destroy the vest und take ove ze vorld (with a Spanish accent), and here’s this letter turned up to him calling him and his commo cronies ” your excellencies” and disputing the science.

    FMD, when is this going to stop?
    Maybe we could write a letter to the Mafia Godfather and tell him he doesn’t need to extort shop owners for “protection” money because studies show that no one in his area is getting robbed by others.

  13. Tim Neilson

    Greta isn’t arguing the science, she is making a moral case.
    She is basically calling on all you so-called altruists to live up to your stated moral code.

    No amount of discussions about parts per million of CO2 is going to even come close to countering her.

    Poor old imbecilic Iamashiteater.

    If, as the sceptics are arguing, Greta’s “science” is bogus and more CO2 isn’t harmful, her “moral case” is bogus as well.

    What if I said that a giant green space monster would devour earth if you didn’t STFU? Would there be an unanswerable “moral case” that you should STFU?

    Please, please say “yes”.

  14. The only way to address an ignoramus is to ignore it, as the etymology suggests:

    ignoramus (n.)

    1570s, originally an Anglo-French legal term (early 15c.), from Latin ignoramus “we take no notice of, we do not know,” first person plural present indicative of ignorare “not to know, take no notice of” (see ignorant). The legal term was one a grand jury could write on a bill when it considered the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. Sense of “ignorant person” (1616) came from the title role in George Ruggle’s 1615 play in Latin satirizing the ignorance of common lawyers. The plural is ignoramuses as it never was a noun in Latin.

  15. Iampeter

    If, as the sceptics are arguing, Greta’s “science” is bogus and more CO2 isn’t harmful, her “moral case” is bogus as well.

    How’d you figure that? Do you think morality is determined by the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere or something?
    No, she’d just move onto the next thing. All of history is the same story.
    Altruists want to sacrifice individuals to god, race, nation, proletariat and today the environment. The technicalities of what individuals should be sacrificed to is not the issue. It’s the “sacrifice” part that’s the problem. A problem religious altruists can’t counter because you agree with it.

    As with socialists so with environmentalists, conservatives agree on the fundamentals and spend their time arguing technicalities that are non-essential.

  16. NuThink

    Greta isn’t arguing the science, she is making a moral case.

    So it is moral to scare the bejesus out of kids (many adults included – sorry woke persons older than children).
    It is moral to let people have no heating or electricity?
    It is moral to rip off the poor?
    She actually ignores science and trusts in snake oil salesmen.
    How can these people accurately predict the world ends in 12 years, unless they are tracking a heavenly body on a collision course with earth in 12 years time.
    She is not arguing the science because she does not know how science works.

    Born Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg

    Perhaps she is inserting herself into the adventures of the other TinTin.
    http://en.tintin.com/

  17. cohenite

    It’s the “sacrifice” part that’s the problem. A problem religious altruists can’t counter because you agree with it.

    That’s true and stupid at the same time. Pol tot is the figurehead of a religion, no doubt but it’s not other religions arguing with a competitor; there are referential standards which show what pol tot represents is garbage; it is those standards which are under attack by alarmists and other outbreaks of leftism.

    And incidentally while it’s true Christianity is based on sacrifice it is not the sacrifice of its adherents but it’s God. Amongst religions that makes it unique.

  18. Tel

    The word “altruism” has relatively recent atheist origins, go look it up. It’s never been a religious word.

    We go through this, but it’s hopeless. The purpose is time wasting.

  19. RobK

    It will take herculean statesman in the UN to admit they had it wrong the whole time.
    I can’t see it happening soon.

  20. max

    Tel
    #3185999, posted on October 16, 2019 at 7:46 pm
    The word “altruism” has relatively recent atheist origins, go look it up. It’s never been a religious word.

    We go through this, but it’s hopeless. The purpose is time wasting.

    Of course it is hopples, majority of people can not reason they think with head below waist.

    Ethics asks us to consider whether our actions are right or wrong. It also asks us how those character traits that help humans flourish (such as integrity, honesty, faithfulness, and compassion) play out in everyday living.

    Adulteress Ayn Rand give us real life example of reason at work.

  21. Nob

    I agree with Pyrmonter here – they’ve simply presented the climate nuts with an open goal and they’ve already been attacked and effectively de-platformed for lack of credentials because of the inclusion of mere commentators.

    Now, I know that the hysterics and doomsters do this but they get a free pass on questions like:
    Who are the “97%”?
    Why did it change from “95%”?
    What exactly do they agree on?
    Can you even be a climate scientist if you don’t already think there’s catastrophic warming?
    Are graduate geologists, zoologists and biologists even competent to predict climate?

  22. billie

    the science doesn’t matter anymore unless it is supporting their case

    for example,
    Q. how do you know god exists
    A. because I see his work all around me

    but the science says that work doesn’t relate to what you say
    Who cares about YOUR science, see the things I point at

    omg .. typhoon in Japan, the science supports our narrative!

    I can’t see anything shaking this in the near term, we’ll have to wait it out

  23. Iampeter

    The word “altruism” has relatively recent atheist origins, go look it up. It’s never been a religious word.

    We go through this, but it’s hopeless. The purpose is time wasting.

    You can use whatever word you want that describes the morality of self-sacrifice. That’s not the point, nor important.
    As usual, you’ve not understood what’s been said and are wasting your time hung-up on irrelevant technicalities.
    Taking an exasperated tone because you’re not self aware.

  24. JC

    Imploder

    What time do you get the computer in the mornings?

  25. Crossie

    RobK
    #3186000, posted on October 16, 2019 at 7:46 pm
    It will take herculean statesman in the UN to admit they had it wrong the whole time.
    I can’t see it happening soon.

    The solution is quite simple really, dismantle the UN.

  26. Major Elvis Newton

    “…Greta isn’t arguing the science, she is making a moral case…”

    Greta is doing nothing. There is no personal sacrifice on her part. She is not prepared to give up her feted and coddled existence, instead she chooses appeals to bogus authority and to lecture from a pulpit fully funded by Soros globalists and other 1%ers too chicken shit to live a life of austerity to assuage their climate god.

    That’s for the plebs.

    Greta is a fraud.

  27. struth

    Greta isn’t arguing the science, she is making a moral case.
    She is basically calling on all you so-called altruists to live up to your stated moral code.

    Greta, like you, is a child.

    We do not care what children think of our actions, and know she is being abused by adults, especially her parents, who should be in jail for what the have done to her.
    Greta has done more damage to their side than they could possibly have imagined, because lefties are thick like that.
    She has awakened the apathetic to the sinister side of the Climate Commos.

    Adults know the world isn’t ending in twelve years, most don’t believe in this crap at all, and even the politically apathetic know China and India are getting a free pass to pollute on a grand scale and so an emergency it’s not.
    They’re waking up very quickly to the UN, headed by a commo who’s pushing too hard for global socialism, and as extinction rebellion and other Soros funded insanities expose their agendas, and talk insanities of Veganism, cow farts, and the like, the west, due in no small part to Donald Trump, is starting ever so slowly to awaken, to regain it’s healthy scepticism.
    I wager soon, as we have already seen with comedians, the commentators and the famous will indeed distance themselves more and more.
    People better chose the right side, as sportsmen in the States have found out, it isn’t the side they think it is.
    Thanks to Greta’s handlers they are being openly mocked.
    It’s over, but the death throws of the Climate commos will still be difficult to put up with.

  28. struth

    Donald Trump won office because the people were already sick of this bullshit before he came to power.

  29. Ceres

    Greta reflects the insanity of most of the world today.
    That anyone could pay attention to a coached 16 year old child with psychological problems, no expertise in any field and limited home schooling, is quite staggering. In this crazy world the fact that some world leaders will play along with this madness, shows where we are heading. Meanwhile the adults with scientific backgrounds and logic but with a differing anthropogenic climate take, are ridiculed or ignored. It can’t end well.

  30. Dr Faustus

    This ‘Greta’, of whom you all speak, has fulfilled her handlers wishes at the UN (and added a bonus scowl at Trump). Now that she has missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize she is soo last week – and consequently has vanished completely.

    She will need quite a bit of re-inventing for her next outing.

  31. hzhousewife

    Is Greta rowing a boat back to Sveeedon?

  32. max

    the morality of self-sacrifice

    —Ayn Rand Lexicon
    Search domain aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.htmlaynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
    Kant is the first philosopher of self-sacrifice to advance this ethics as a matter of philosophic principle,

  33. max

    According to Ayn Rand religion Salvo is up to no good:

    Salvo D’Acquisto:

    was a member of the Italian Carabinieri during the Second World War. He was posthumously awarded the Gold Medal of Military Valor and is being considered for beatification for sacrificing himself to save 22 civilians from being executed by German soldiers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvo_D%27Acquisto

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.