Quote:

Italian scientists call out UN climate alarmism. "Last month, 90 scientists from Italy signed a joint petition to end the fake climate alarmism promoted by the United Nations and mainstream media. In view of what they call unjustifiable exaggerations and unrealistic catastrophic predictions, they urged the government not to make policy decisions based on fake climate emergencies, warning that doing so would put the country’s future in peril...."

http://www.opinione.it/cultura/2019/06/19/redazione_riscaldamento-globale-antropico-clima-inquinamento-uberto-crescenti-antonino-zichichi/?fbclid=IwAR0gfQ2H1I4x5N0XhsI-iJ3MvGK-xRv8jmtNQL8pZ3Q8z1lMIAJ6eXWSoSM


Quote:

Aren't "97 per cent of scientists" supposed to back the scare?:  Last month, 90 scientists from Italy signed a joint petition to end the fake climate alarmism promoted by the United Nations and mainstream media. In view of what they call unjustifiable exaggerations and unrealistic catastrophic predictions, they urged the government not to make policy decisions based on fake climate emergencies, warning that doing so would put the country’s future in peril.... The petition reads, “The anthropic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis, deduced only from some climate models, that is complex computer programs, called General Circulation Models…. Climate simulation models do not reproduce the observed natural variability of the climate and, in particular, do not reconstruct the warm periods of the last 10,000 years … the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce.” Chances of this being reported on the ABC?

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/scientists-protest-against-climate-alarmism/news-story/3dcb855590288e1761feae0c99dea0ba?from=htc_rss&fbclid=IwAR0LfyR3hbnJdzJcf5z5ZQWYXDnIe7Akcr5UnJ3Xb8IQUDw1KGF7VxS7irM

Hi Serial,
something has changed.
We have had record cold & record heat all around the world.
What has caused it?

Aren't "97 per cent of scientists" supposed to back the scare?: 



Its perfectly OK for 90 scientists to be against the "scare" and yet 97 per cent still backing it, unless Andrew Bolt thinks that there are only 3000 scientists in Italy.

Is it true that Scientists are the most physically weak type of people on the planet and that they are more prone to allergies, anxiety, depression and all the other 'snowflake' traits that seem to be infecting Western Society.
Better give them a jab while they invent another mechanism to physically carry them into the next day.  ;D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 30^th, 2019 at 7:42am:

Aren't "97 per cent of scientists" supposed to back the scare?:

;D ;D ;D ;D You shoiuld have quoted "supposed". ;D ;D ;D

Cook et al found -

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So 33.3% of abstracts took a position on AGW (32.6%+0.7%). And 97.1% of 33.3% is 32.33% of ABSTRACTS not climate scientists. And 32.33% is a far cry from 97.1%.

Cook et al failed maths. ;)

Jasin wrote on Jul 30^th, 2019 at 9:21pm:

Is it true that Scientists are the most physically weak type of people on the planet and that they are more prone to allergies, anxiety, depression and all the other 'snowflake' traits that seem to be infecting Western Society. Better give them a jab while they invent another mechanism to physically carry them into the next day.  ;D

Ummm, no its not true.

lee wrote on Jul 30^th, 2019 at 9:41pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 30th, 2019 at 7:42am: Aren't "97 per cent of scientists" supposed to back the scare?:  ;D ;D ;D ;D You shoiuld have quoted "supposed". ;D ;D ;D Cook et al found - "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. " https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 So 33.3% of abstracts took a position on AGW (32.6%+0.7%). And 97.1% of 33.3% is 32.33% of ABSTRACTS not climate scientists. And 32.33% is a far cry from 97.1%. Cook et al failed maths. ;)

Tell Bolt that he's the one who wrote it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 31^st, 2019 at 7:42am:

Tell Bolt that he's the one who wrote it.

Yeah. And we know you don't "get" sarcasm". ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 31^st, 2019 at 12:04pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 31st, 2019 at 7:42am: Tell Bolt that he's the one who wrote it. Yeah. And we know you don't "get" sarcasm". ;D ;D ;D ;D

IN the same way you don't "get" research

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 31^st, 2019 at 2:12pm:

IN the same way you don't "get" research

I get "research" petal. Climate models not so much. ;)