1600 Scientists Question Climate Emergency
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
9/16/2023
In a recent Epoch Times article, the following points were made:
– Over 1,600 scientists and professionals signed a declaration stating there is no climate emergency. They argue the alarmist messaging around climate change is political, not scientific.
– Several scientists interviewed argue human CO2 emissions are not the primary driver of global warming. They cite issues with climate models, natural climate cycles, the complexity of climate systems, and the lack of warming as evidence.
– Some argue the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political, not scientific, organization that exaggerates climate threats.
– Scientists argue policies aimed at reducing CO2, like transitioning to renewables, are misguided, economically harmful, and will not significantly impact temperatures.
– Some believe declaring a climate emergency is used politically for greater control and global power by certain groups, not to address a real existential threat.
– Experts argue current weather events and temperatures are within natural variation, not outside historical norms, and do not constitute an emergency.
– The article presents the perspective of over 1,600 scientists challenging the dominant narratives around a climate emergency and human-caused climate change.
– Scientist Edwin Berry argues that natural CO2 flows into and out of the atmosphere quickly, while human CO2 makes up only a small fraction of total CO2. Therefore, attempts to reduce human CO2 will be ineffective.
– Physicist Ralph Alexander states little evidence links human CO2 to rising temperatures. He argues natural factors like solar variability play a bigger role.
– Meteorologist Joe Bastardi believes recent warming is linked to increased underwater volcanic activity warming the oceans, not human factors.
– Scientist Richard Lindzen argues even if CO2 is a threat, current policies do nothing to reduce it while making societies less resilient.
– Scientist John Christy found climate models exaggerate future warming by 2-3 times compared to satellite temperature data.
– Multiple experts argue climate science is not settled, many natural factors are still poorly understood, and more research is needed before declaring an emergency.
– Some cite past failed predictions of climate catastrophes and constant shifting rhetoric around global cooling, warming, etc., as reasons for skepticism.
– Experts argue poverty alleviation through fossil fuels should take precedence over mitigation policies that may trap developing nations in poverty.
– The article highlights the significant dissent in the scientific community regarding climate alarmism and the notion of a climate emergency driven by human CO2.
– Physicist Haym Benaroya states climate models are inherently inaccurate due to the enormous complexity of modeling Earth’s climate system.
– Meteorologist Anthony Watts argues surface temperature records are flawed due to urban heat effects, flawed siting of weather stations, and adjustments by government agencies.
– Geologist Ian Plimer argues historic CO2 levels were much higher than today, yet there were ice ages and no runaway warming, undermining climate emergency claims.
– Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv argues cosmic ray flux impacts cloud cover and has a large effect on climate, something not accounted for in climate models.
– Geologist Gerrit van der Lingen argues sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended around 1850, long before human emissions could have an effect.
– Physicist Steven Koonin argues climate models cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, undermining confidence in their long-term projections.
– Engineer Barrie Peake argues that no direct experimental evidence shows CO2 causes significant warming in the atmosphere, the core assumption of climate models.
– The article highlights many different scientific critiques of aspects of climate science and modeling used to justify climate alarmism and emergency claims. It demonstrates significant debate still exists on these issues in the scientific community.
– Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen argues the major climate changes in Earth’s past were driven by differences in temperature between the tropics and poles, not greenhouse gases.
– Physicist Steven E. Koonin argues even if human CO2 is having an impact, it does not justify claiming a “climate emergency” or taking extreme economic actions. The impacts are small and can be adapted to.
– Meteorologist Martin Hertzberg argues water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, not CO2, and climate models do not properly account for its impacts on weather processes.
– Geologist George Devries Klein argues sea levels only rose about 6 inches over the 20th century. This modest rise does not justify alarmism about sea level rise accelerating.
– Engineer Peter Stilbs argues it is uncertain whether increased CO2 or warming will be mostly positive or negative overall for life on Earth, so declaring an emergency is not justified.
– Physicist Peter Ridd argues coral reefs are adapted to warmer and cooler periods, so recent bleaching events are not outside natural variability or catastrophic.
– The article highlights the diversity of critiques to elements of the prevailing climate emergency narrative from highly qualified scientists across various fields. It makes the case that alternative viewpoints in this complex scientific debate exist.
In summary, these experts critique the reliability of climate models, the attribution of warming to human activities, the notion that recent climate behavior is outside of natural variability, claims of impending catastrophe, and the justification for economy-transforming policies. They argue for more objective, skeptical science and reasoned debate on climate change rather than alarmism.
While there are more specifics and nuances to each scientist’s arguments, the general thrust is a skepticism of the evidence used to declare a climate emergency and a belief that natural factors and uncertainty have not been adequately considered. Providing a comprehensive examination of each perspective would require looking at other publications by these scientists.
Commentary:
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
God gave us the earth, plants, and animals to be under our stewardship. The earth and animals were made for man. Mankind is not a virus or invasive species – we are the reason creation exists. God created us to fill His heart. He created the universe and man to have souls capable of choosing or rejecting Him as a lover. One axis of love is how we treat each other, and another is how we treat His world.
I believe He wants us to be in a loving/caring/respectful/grateful relationship with everything in His creation – His animals, plants, and earth. I believe every assembly of mass and volume of space is composed by/of/for Him. We express our love of Him by our actions and relationship with everything and everyone. He has a perfect way of being, walking on the earth, conversing and working, praying and meditating, recreating and reproducing. He is omnipresent and omniscient. He participates in every life experience at all times; He created everything as He cannot be separated from His creation. There is a way that pleases God and a way that displeases Him. The Bible is a hologram that captures/reflects His nature and should be used to obtain clues about who He is and how we should move in His world.
“Climate change deniers,” such as the 1600 scientists mentioned in the above article have propositioned that there is no climate crisis and that the alarmism about the climate crisis is unjustified. Consider the article, and consider what the proper course of action should be, given our relationship with God, and the consequences of the proposed mandated transfer to renewables, when the technology and infrastructure are still immature.