The Five Hundred

Reads: 140  | Likes: 2  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

More Details
I didn't really want to write this, but it is something we should try to understand.

Submitted: October 04, 2019

A A A | A A A

Submitted: October 04, 2019

A A A

A A A


The Five Hundred

On the day Greta Thunberg spoke at the United Nations, a registered letter was sent to the Secretary General signed by five hundred people. Among them were scientists, engineers and corporate leaders. The five hundred are on the other side of the climate debate and the interesting thing is, the letter isn’t getting much traction in the media. This may or may not be fair because the full list of signatories hasn’t been disclosed, but it will be on October 18. Some of the corporate leaders are bound to be in the fossil fuel industry and detractors are bound to say they have a vested interest, which may be so, but vested interests are rife in the whole debate.

Here’s the letter as I found it:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. 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. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

 

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.

My interest in the debate began in the defence of carbon dioxide, the proposed theft of carbon credits of private forestry by our government and the fact that our government is purchasing carbon credits from other nations because we have not been able to meet our commitment to reduce emissions. Those funds would be better spent in our own country. What I have found is a lot of jiggery-pockery going by the climate alarmists, with the UN and IPCC being complicit. The media seems to have fallen in with them too because there’s an obvious lack of investigative reporting.

The famous 97% of scientists with consensus is 97% of the 77 scientist who were hand-picked by the IPCC to come up with data proving climate change is on the way. Much of the data they have used, has been proven to be corrupted. If you have to cook the books to prove your case, there’s something wrong with your case.

Here in Kiwiland, whenever there’s a mention of climate change on television, there are three images that are always shown. There are the chimneys billowing carbon dioxide. Well no. Actually carbon dioxide is an invisible, colourless and odourless gas, but it’s not even carbon dioxide, if we could see it, the offender is carbon monoxide, also an invisible gas. What you see is other pollutants, and yes pollution is bad, a health hazard and everything else, but nobody’s identified it as causing climate change.

The litmus paper of climate change and the loss of ice in the Arctic is an emaciated polar bear. According to the WWF website, there are more than 20 000 healthy polar bears, which is about the optimum for the territory they have. The polar bear you see on television is exactly how most of us end up – visit any aged care facility and you will see. Walruses are doing fine too, the video of them committing suicide is simply fatuous.

The ice slipping into the sea is emotive because the connotation is that sea levels will rise. And that’s quite possible. But so far the Fort Denison tide gauge shows nothing unusual in the sea-level of the Pacific and as all seas are connected and as water finds its own level, we have to assume all the seas haven’t changed remarkably. Areas in the northern hemisphere are rising from the sea and when that happens some land surface may be sinking ‘in sympathy’ because the Earth’s crust is pliable. We have to remember that ice melts at just over freezing point. During the last ice age 32% of the globe was covered by ice, now it’s 10%, the loss has been going on for 10 000 years, so it’s likely to continue but in the same slow geological time-frame.

We need to be aware there is no such thing as ‘normal’ in Earth’s climate or topography, there always have been wild changes, so we have to be prepared for more. Changes that aren’t in our control. We’ve only been measuring weather accurately for 150 years and most of the data is from the northern hemisphere with the continents of Africa and South America lacking data, so how can you have world averages?

I thought the climate alarmists were marching to Al Gore’s tune of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ where most of his predictions have lapsed with nothing happening anyway. But now I’m not so sure, the UN has its Agenda 21, which basically plans a new world order. You’ll have to judge Agenda 21 for yourself and while you’re at it check out the contrast between the early proponents, Gro Brundtland and Maurice Strong, particularly the latter – go on, look him up. The use of fear, climate fear is a tactic to help on the way of implementing Agenda 21. I couldn’t quite get my head around why elements of the far left are harping on about a climate emergency while the climate around me is quite stable, now I understand.

The scary thing is that I’m against growth economies, I too proposed sustainable development and condemn the idea of 5% of the people owning 95% of the wealth, but I don’t align myself with Agenda 21! Maybe we do need a new world order but the UN is an unelected body with no mandate to impose such a thing. In 1992, 179 countries including mine, signed up to the adoption of Agenda 21 at the Rio de Janeiro Conference on Environment and Development but we were never consulted, were you?

Sometimes in life you find out things you don’t really want to know, this is probably one of those.  

 

 

 


© Copyright 2020 moa rider. All rights reserved.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • Invite

Add Your Comments:

Comments

avatar

Author
Reply

avatar

Author
Reply

More Editorial and Opinion Essays