advertiser content
advertiser content
Dear Editor,
Some Agronomists suggest an excess of CO2 is beneficial to green crops such as corn, soybeans, alfalfa and small grains. A bountiful harvest means we can feed more of our people worldwide. I believe we need to re-evaluate the data and make sure we are not moving in a dangerous direction for the health of the world's people. I also suggest that if there is a "war" on cattle - it must cease.
Look to the western plains; grass is the prominent crop - domestic animals such as cattle, goats and sheep turn this cellulose (grass) into meat, milk, and fiber. Our so-called leaders need to slow down and take a second look at their data.
Regards,John Stiegelmeyer, B.S. Animal Science, Iowa State University Class of 1963Vinton

P.S. Breadcrumbs: More than 1,600 scientists, including two Nobel laureates, declare climate 'emergency' a myth

"The global coalition of scientists say that politics and a journalistic frenzy has propelled a doomsday climate change hysteria. The signatories also ask other scientists to "address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming." Link

By Addison Smith

A coalition of 1,609 scientists from around the world have signed a declaration stating "there is no climate emergency" and that they "strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy" being pushed across the globe. The declaration does not deny the harmful effect of greenhouse gasses, but instead challenges the hysteria brought about by the narrative of imminent doom.

The declaration, put together by the Global Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL), was made public this month and urges that "Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific."

CLINTEL is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

"Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures," the declaration says.

Of the 1,609 scientists who have signed the declaration, two signatories are Nobel Prize laureates. The most recent to sign is Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics. In an announcement from CLINTEL, Clauser is quoted as saying "Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists."

The underlying report that engendered the declaration lays out a series of statements challenging many of the common climate claims. For example, one of the most common claims - and repeated without question by many - is that the earth will soon pass "tipping points that will lead to catastrophic environmental damage, including dangerous sea level rise, entire species going extinct, and even greater suffering in many nations, especially the poorest."

The sense of immediate crisis has been repeated constantly by mainstream media, including The New York Times, which said flatly, "Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade."

In 2009, former vice president Al Gore famously predicted that "the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013." He later backtracked, according to Reuters, who said Gore was merely quoting other scientific reports. Gore had three years earlier published "An Inconvenient Truth" the subtitle of which was "The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It." A documentary film based on the book earned $24,146,161 in gross receipts that year.

Celebrity activist Greta Thunberg tweeted in 2018 - five years after Gore's doomsday prediction - that "climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years." The Highland County Press reported that she deleted the tweet.

Last week, John Kerry, President Biden's "Special Presidential Envoy for Climate" spoke at a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, saying that "scientists who have spent a lifetime tracking this human-made crisis described themselves as 'alarmed' and 'terrified.' As one said unequivocally, "we are now in uncharted territory."

"So now, humanity is inexorably threatened by humanity itself-by those seducing people into buying into a completely fictitious alternative reality where we don't need to act and we don't even need to care," Kerry added.

The signatories to the CLINTEL declaration say that global warming is "far slower than predicted," and that "inadequate models" often guide climate policy.

The CLINTEL declaration comes at a time when recent claims abound that natural disasters such as the wildfires in Maui and Canada, the heatwaves across the globe and other events are driven by climate change. The declaration goes on to challenge the ever-ready blame on climate change, stating "There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent."

As President Biden and countless world leaders push heavily for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 the scientists assert that this is not only "unrealistic," but harmful to world economies.

"There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050," the paper reads, proposing "adaptation instead of mitigation.""


Submit a Comment

Please refresh the page to leave Comment.

Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".

AS September 6, 2023, 6:17 pm "There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050," the paper reads, proposing "adaptation instead of mitigation
RB September 6, 2023, 6:19 pm Answer a few questions for me. Is it healthier for air quality not to be burning fossil fuels or do your 1600 scientists discount that too? What do those esteemed scientist say are behind nearly 100 degree temperatures in the gulf? Is that a hoax too? Doesn’t warmer gulf temps lead to more rapidly developed intense hurricanes?
GB September 6, 2023, 6:36 pm It's becoming very redundant to hear the same politicians and celebrities screaming about climate change and blaming every natural (and predictable) event on climate change. What certifications do they have to publicly make such claims. Is it any innocent coincidence that many (especially the politicians) have invested heavily in green energy? Why is it that the largest polluters are China and India? Why is it that very little is done to curb their pollution? Yet China produces the majority of solar panels to sell to us and like sheep, we keep going along with this and our leaders find this to somehow to be acceptable.
If We could cease our carbon footprint right now to zero, it would have a very minimal impact on the overall levels of carbon emissions if China and India continue to do nothing.
Is it any coincidence that we have politicians at the highest levels of our government making money from China and make the outlandish claims they are not selling out our country while they line their own pockets?
We have watched in Maui, where their fires were blamed on global warming. Yet brush and debris was not cleared from powerlines where the source of the fire started. It had nothing to do with global warming. That was a lie. Sadly, there are those who believe this garbage. Unfortunately, our country is led by some politicians who know nothing about science or basic economics and have never accomplished anything productive except convincing enough people to vote for them term after term with the promise of free stuff every election to people who have never understood "nothing is free."

DE September 7, 2023, 7:01 am So typical.

CLINTEL group inaccurately represents climate science in its declaration of “no climate emergency” once again

Incorrect:Observations show that global mean surface temperature has increased since 1850. Among other lines of evidence, climate models that have been skillful at simulating global mean surface temperature indicate that human activity–and, notably human emissions of carbon dioxide–is responsible for this increase, rather than the end of the Little Ice Age. Scientific evidence supports the finding that climate change influences various extreme weather events, which adversely impact plants and agriculture, contrary to the unsupported claims made in this letter and its coverage that suggest otherwise.

Scientists have investigated all potential causes of climate change and concluded that human activity is responsible for modern warming, not the end of the Little Ice Age. Climate change has adverse impacts on plants and agriculture, including through its influence on extreme weather events.

CLAIM: “The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.”; Warming is far slower than predicted”; “Climate models have many shortcomings…”; “CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth”; “There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.“
A letter published on August 14 by CLINTEL, a group that claims to have the support of “1,609 scientists and professionals”, repeats a series of familiar myths about climate science to arrive at its declaration that “there is no climate emergency”. The group has published similar claims about climate science in the same letter format in 2022 and 2019, both of which were previously analyzed by Climate Feedback, here and here. This year’s edition of the letter was covered by dozens of online blogs and news sites, including the Epoch Times, an outlet that has also previously published science misinformation.

The letter first claims that “it is no surprise that we are now experiencing a period of warming” because the “Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850”. The Little Ice Age refers to a period of slight cooling, typically defined as occurring from the mid-16th to mid-19th century that was particularly strongly expressed in the northern hemisphere (Fig. 1)[1]. Scientists have proposed a variety of explanations for the cause of the Little Ice Age, including reduced solar activity[2], variations in atmospheric circulation patterns[1], changes in North Atlantic ocean circulation and ice dynamics[3], large volcanic eruptions[4], and even human-driven land-use change triggered by European colonialism[5].

Figure 1. Reconstructions and observations of global temperature change over the last two millennia. The magnitude of temperature change during the Little Ice Age, denoted by the blue-shaded region of the plot, is far outweighed by current warming. Source: Climate Lab Book

Here, the letter is implying that post-industrial warming resulted naturally from the end of this cool interval, which climate scientists say is not accurate. Climate scientists have parsed out the influence of human-caused and natural factors on global mean surface temperature, and have concluded that contemporary warming is due to human activity (Fig. 2)[6,7].

As Timothy Osborn, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, remarked in comments to Climate Feedback for a previous review of a similar claim, “[N]atural warming after the Little Ice Age was complete by the late 1800s. The warming from the late 1800s to the present is all due to human-caused climate change, because natural factors have changed little since then and even would have caused a slight cooling over the last 70 years rather than the warming we have observed” (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. (left) Unprecedented rate of warming since 1850 and (right) observed (black) and simulated temperature change since 1850 with (brown) and without (green) human factors. Note that natural factors alone are insufficient to explain the unprecedented post-industrial rate of warming as documented in observations. Source: IPCC AR6

The letter goes on to claim that “warming is far slower than predicted” and that “[t]he world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing”. However, the results from IPCC models shown in Fig. 2 indicate that the current suite of IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) models accurately captures the observed warming since 1850. Earlier climate models have also generally been skillful at simulating global mean surface temperature (Fig. 3)[8]. While some models have overestimated warming, others have underestimated it.

As the authors of a 2019 paper[8] that explored the performance of projections by climate models over the last several decades put it, “We find no evidence that the climate models evaluated in this paper have systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over their projection period”. By suggesting that climate models have exclusively overestimated warming, the CLINTEL letter is engaging in cherry-picking–selectively reporting on only the results that match a desired outcome while excluding other pieces of relevant scientific evidence.

Figure 3. Average of model-simulated temperature change from the IPCC’s first assessment report published in 1990 (black) against various temperature observations (colors). Source: Carbon Brief

According to the letter, carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas that is predominantly responsible for modern warming, is “plant food” that is both “favorable for nature” and “increas[es] the yield of crops worldwide”. However, scientists say that this claim oversimplifies the relationship between plants and CO2.

“The benefit[s] of increasing CO2 concentrations for plant growth are increasingly being outweighed by the negative impacts, especially of global warming”, said Sara Vicca, a plant biologist and biogeochemist at the University of Antwerp, in comments to Climate Feedback for a previous article on the topic. “This is true for natural as well as agricultural ecosystems”.

While satellite observations indicate that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 have supported plant growth over the last few decades, these terrestrial (and marine) CO2 sinks do not remove all of the anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. The uptake of carbon by terrestrial and marine plants together helps to slow the rate of warming. What’s leftover, however, causes climate change, which has a variety of adverse impacts on plants and agriculture.

According to the latest IPCC report, human influence on climate has created physical conditions likely to increase the occurrence and severity of some extreme weather events (such as heavy precipitation, compound flooding, fire weather, and agricultural and ecological drought),[6] contrary to the letter’s claim that climate change “has not increased natural disasters”. Attribution scientists have even been able to identify the influence of climate change on individual extreme weather events in some cases. For example, scientists have found that the occurrence of the 2021 heatwave in the Pacific northwest region would have been “virtually impossible” without the existence of anthropogenic climate change.[9]

These events, scientists say, put additional stress on plants and agriculture. “We are already seeing the first signs of a decline in the land CO2 sink and increasing extreme heatwaves and droughts seem to be a key reason behind this”, Vicca noted. One meta-analysis identified negative relationships between warming and the yields of maize, rice, wheat, and soy–four major agricultural crops.[10] Elevated levels of CO2 could also lower the nutritional value of rice, according to a 2016 study.[11]

The author of the Epoch Times article purports that the CLINTEL letter contains the signatories of “over 1,600 scientists”. However, as in previous iterations of this letter, this claim is misleading because many of the letter’s 1,609 signatories are non-scientists and include people with the self-reported credentials of “retired teacher and manager of a small business”, “Senior Ship Designer”, and “Financial Advice Specialist”. Additionally, very few of the signatories who identify as scientists report credentials in climate science.
GB September 7, 2023, 9:42 am RB,
It's called Summer...
advertiser content advertiser content advertiser content
advertiser content