Spread the word far and wide.

31,487 people with Science degrees, of which 9,029 hold PhD,s have signed a petition saying that the so called science  that claims global warming is caused by humans is flawed and that govt action on this basis will be damaging to our environment as well as humans. http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php

In 2015, the White House claimed that  “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agreed that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

 

So, where did this 97% figure come from?

It came from a study conducted in 2013.

97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle/

41 Papers endorsed his claims, 0.3% and yet this claim of 97% is banded about constantly by main stream media. 

 Scientists have been pulling the climate scams for decades, back in the 70,s it was global cooling that was going to cause havoc. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/178/4057/190

Everything which now gets blamed on global warming, was blamed on global cooling.

Many who now claim global warming or climate change is down to humans also now claim that the global cooling claims were a myth, yet the evidence exists to show that this was not the case at the time. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

Al Gore was given authority over the climate agenda and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In this document in 1997, the charter included the instructions to,”NOT debate the science behind global warming but to concentrate on implementing the policies” ( Section 4- Paragraph B).

https://clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/PCSD/Charter/

Al Gore has made his fortune from the climate change agenda, it is no wonder that the charter instructed them to NOT debate the science.

It is obviously clear that the science is not settled, Rather, the politically favoured “science” is funded. 

America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

Nobody tracks budgets in a way that allows you to know how much, exactly, is spent on climate change — let alone in a way that breaks that total down into prevention vs. consequences.

Climate change has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $350 billion over the past decade, according to a report released last year from nonpartisan federal watchdog the Government Accountability Office

And the UK, according to the letter, seen by the FT, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy believes it will cost roughly £70bn a year.

Whilst Mr Hammond said: “On the basis of these estimates, the total cost of transitioning to a zero-carbon economy is likely to be well in excess of £1tn.”This  requires cuts to funding for schools, hospitals and the police force. 

650 peer reviewed papers have already been published in scientific  journals that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob.https://notrickszone.com/2017/04/03/growing-skepticism-already-150-new-2017-scientific-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.dbzgfh8g.dpbs

90 Italian scientists have signed a petition saying that Climate change is a hoax.https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/07/90-scientists-global-warming-is-a-total-hoax/ 

These scientists go on to state flatly that “the anthropic origin of global warming is an UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS, deduced only from some climate simulation models.” In other words, the entire catastrophic global warming scare rests on very imprecise and almost invariably wrong simulation models, which cannot account for natural variability. 

It is time we stop this pseudo science, money grabbing agenda before any more damage is done!

The following are observations via Claire Wolfie.

In May 2019, Cambridge University announced the launch of a new research lab, named Centre for Climate Repair. The centre aims to explore ways to reduce emissions, e.g. by further advancing technologies to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Further geoengineering approaches, such as solar radiation management, BECCS and ocean fertilization will be also researched. The centre is part of the University’s Carbon Neutral Future programme (led by Dr Emily Shuckburgh). Details, as the centre’s financial budget and exact work programme, are not yet available.

Type
Major research project
Status
Planned
Scale
R&D.
State
United Kingdom
Period of time
Launch announced in May 2019.
Sponsor(s)
Not yet available.
Website(s)
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/…/cambridge-university-cli…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Cambridge-scientists-building…

TECHNOLOGY INFO

Major research projects

Major research and policy institutes focusing on geoengineering (with and without testing).

SRMGI, the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative, aims to expand the discussion of geoengineering around the globe and works to promote SRM by building capacity and understanding around SRM, especially in the developing world. In 2017, the SRMGI created a new research fund: The Decimals Fund (Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for SRM) aims to model the impacts of SRM across the developing world. The fund will support developing country scientists who want to analyse the possible impacts that SRM could have on their regions and will be administered by TWAS.

Type
MCB (Marine Cloud Brightening or Cloud Reflectivity Enhancement)
Status
Ongoing
Scale
Capacity building.
State
United Kingdom
Period of time
Since 2010.
Sponsor(s)
Open Philanthropy Project, Royal Society, Environmental Defence Fund, Third World Academy of Science (TWAS), full list: http://www.srmgi.org/about/stakeholder-partners/
Website(s)
www.srmgi.org
http://www.openphilanthropy.org/…/solar-radiation…
http://www.srmgi.org/decimals-fund/
Please help us keep the data on this map up-to-date and write to schneider@boell.de to inform us about any changes.

TECHNOLOGY INFO

Solar Radiation Management

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) describes a suite of proposed technologies that aim to reflect sunlight back into space before it warms the Earth’s climate.

Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB)

MCB proposals aim to increase the whiteness of clouds in order to reflect more sunlight back into space. As with other SRM proposals, changing solar radiation can impact weather patterns and there may be impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems as well as agriculture.

Source: ETC Group and HBF “Climate change, smoke and mirrors. A civil society briefing on Geoengineering” (2017).

Source: Based on “The World of Geoengineering” (slightly adapted).
SRMGI.ORG
Partner Organizations – SRMGI

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 Comments

Post your comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>