400 Woke Scientists endorse mass civil disobedience to force climate action

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: ChefFox

400?


400 is all they could find who would sell their soul for thirty pieces of silver.

How many scientists are there in the world? They could only find 400.

I was taught back in nineteen hundred and seventy five that the planet is heading for a time when the ice shall return.

I have not heard anything of value that would alter that view after all of the 45 years since then.

This graph was made before Al Gore and his minions started to alter the base data collected by organisations.

Where are we now on that graph and where do we go next?

Lol the 400 wacky ones.

P

And if you notice from that graph, co2 increase follows temp increase... Not the other way around as these clowns would have us believe...

a reply to: ChefFox

LOL,scientists endorsing a BS agenda,we are headed into a solar minimum which effects earth magnetic poles and pole shifting very fast,last time it happened around 1812 and rewrote history,we will be destroyed as pole flips,sending all water over land,scientists are paid shills

sounds like most of the ATS readers nowadays know better than the scientists. Thank god for you guys, I'd be lost without your collective unwavering moral and scientific compass.
Seriously, this place is so different nowadays.

a reply to: ChefFox

So now

"We believe that the continued governmental inaction over the climate and ecological crisis now justifies peaceful and non-violent protest"

how is this seen as a negative, regaedless of what is being protested providing it is peacful and non violent, what is the problem, or should we all just bow down to the government and do as we are told.

I understand ATS likes to get outraged over things like this but within in OP it even states "peaceful and non violent" I guess we should just lock anyone up who dares disagree, so much for right to protest and other freedoms.

a reply to: continuousThunder

no one on this site wants anything approaching a rational conversation.

I guess that depends on what one would consider a "rational conversation."

Show me a problem and I will be more than happy to have a "rational conversation." However, that statement is based on a few conditions: like, for example, the problem has to be a problem. So far, I have seen nothing that indicates that the planet is going to experience any kind of catastrophic climatic shift. What I see are relatively minor cycles occurring in a massively MIMO control system. In other words, correction noise. Thank God above that is happening! If it weren't, then we'd have a real cause to worry.

That's your first step: show me there is a problem. Prove to me that the recent observations are out of the normal variation for climatic specifications.

Now, once you have proved to me there is a problem, we can have a rational conversation about the cause and possible solution to said problem. There are a few requirements for that as well, such as a complete and thorough examination of all potential causes and solutions. The Global Warming alarmists have jumped straight into cause/solution before proving a problem, but even worse they refuse to even consider or address other potential causes or solutions. When everything is caused by carbon dioxide, nothing is caused by carbon dioxide.

I can only assume that deep down they're so terrified of the consequences of accepting reality

Your assumption is correct. Any sane person would be terrified by the 9 most horrific words in the English language:

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Damn straight I'm terrified.

TheRedneck

a reply to: visitedbythem

So NASA is pushing a global warming hoax to push laws that will make no difference because the world will undergo a devastating cooling in 1 to 5 years???

Makes absolutely no sense.. Why push carbon tax and such if in 1 to five years global warming will be so obviously proven wrong?

Maybe it's just me, but ive heard so many failed weather doom predictions the past 10 years tgat it's hard to take this one seriously.

The climate change fear mongering has reached a whole new level in Australia recently because we're currently going through a very bad drought and have had quite a few massive fires recently. Just yesterday I was driving for a few hours and saw several pieces of graffiti saying things such as "save our climate". The media is also pushing the global warming angle as the reason for the drought and fires, and it's really getting people into a state of hysteria. What they never seem to ask though is how many other nations are experiencing drought a fires, because if they did it would be clear it's not a global thing and thus not the result of global climate change. Australia releases a very small fraction of CO2 compared to nations like the U.S. and China, so why aren't the largest polluters experiencing the worse effects of climate change? The days are no hotter than now than when I was a kid, and I'm absolutely certain that it will be the same when I'm 80, and I'm also sure they will still be frantically screaming about global warming when I'm 80 many decades from now, meanwhile I'll be sitting on my deck enjoying the summer breeze and looking out at the ocean to see that the water level has barely changed in my life time, just like it's barely changed in the last 3 decades since I was a kid, during the period the developed world was releasing the most CO2. I feel like all the people who live in large towns and cities need to get out to nature more because they really have no concept of how and where nature is being impacted by climate change... they live in these massive man made constructions with very little nature in sight and it dramatically alters their perception of how bad things really are because all they see is nature overrun by the activities of man.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: ChefFox

LOL,scientists endorsing a BS agenda,we are headed into a solar minimum which effects earth magnetic poles and pole shifting very fast,last time it happened around 1812 and rewrote history,we will be destroyed as pole flips,sending all water over land,scientists are paid shills

Poles were supposed to shift every year from 2012 and beyond.. The same people are still claiming the pole doom every year.

Ive seen a small number of educated people claim this but it never comes true.

My survival food would be near expired if i took the alarmists seriously.

Although, i am willing to listen. Is there a good amount if scientists who have svidence poles will shift? They can't all be shills...

originally posted by: homerJ
sounds like most of the ATS readers nowadays know better than the scientists. Thank god for you guys, I'd be lost without your collective unwavering moral and scientific compass.
Seriously, this place is so different nowadays.

Im not informed to debate gloval warming, but some stuff on this thread sounds like it's coming from beforeitsnews.com .

It's hard to know what to believe. One side you got the carbon tax agenda and the other side portrays imminent doom or that humans do nothing at all to the environment.

Who knows!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: visitedbythem

The Earth is quickly cooling due to a Grand Solar Minimum beginning right now. Many areas of the world will soon be unfarmable , and uninhabitable. We will be seeing more evidence during the next 1-5 years. Everyone in here will be greatly affected. Food prices will go through the roof.

Y0u're my new weather bunny I'm in s0 ca right n0w c0Id and windy
and I was aIready think'n it and then y0u started writing it and then I
read it and n0w y0u're my new weather bunny

And my key b0ard is jacked up

There is a good chance you will see snow there within 5 years. I definitely will here in Nothern Ca

a reply to: blueman12

Ive been tracking sun spots and solar changes for decades. Watch the video for what is occurring right now, and you will understand. This cooling may last 1000 years. Crops will fail. We will need Mexicos help to grow and supply the YS with food

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Gladyou're so sure of yourself .... You must be a scientist to be speaking in such certain terms.
I'm in Oz too. And I've lived many lives in the bush, off grid in the bush in the mountains, on the coast in the bush, on the coast in the desert, and in suburbia. Consider me a streetwise off gridder from the bush currently "on grid".
Our government is doing NOTHING about ANYTHING.
We're getting shafted every which way and all " the man in the street" wants to do is say the same sh!t you are... as well as somehow blame the greens for out predicament. The media seems to be owning everyone, even the "woke".

Our pri minister is in hawaii sunning his god bothering backside while our country is on fire.
People don't realise the damage that this anti climate change rhetoric is doing to the rest of the efforts that logical ecologists and scientists are engaged in.
What is wrong with you people?? We had snow in November! Its been freezing cold in some parts yet there's massive fires and we're looking down the barrel of several 40 degree days where I live. even if it's not because of climate change, these fires are still because of us. We own/control/manage/terraform this sunburnt country and like it or not, we are responsible for pretty much all of it. Being anti climate change has spilled completely into being anti environmental and we will all suffer because of it... THIS SUMMER MARK MY WORDS.
This anti green movement has to stop.
The "greenies" aren't winning. None of this shgit is their fault, and thanks to this weird ass alt right anti green movement, anything remotely good for the planet that costs money is being poo pooed by you and your minions and nothing's getting done.
We're getting divided and conquered and raped and plundered just like our planet's ecology is.... The media is totally in on it, never before have I seen so much contrived division in this country amongst peers. I hare it.

sorry, drunkpost, probably didn't;t read yours properly but I hope your getting what I'm emotively and verbosely saying?

(will read and edit if necessary in the morning (australian time) but leaving here for now for drunken prosperity and to stimulate conversation.)

a reply to: visitedbythem

0ur mountains just got hammered a couple weeks ago. Baldy and Big Bear.
Large amount very early.

a reply to: visitedbythem

Fair enough.. Why aren't more scientists speaking out about it if it's going to effect crops so bad?

LONDON (Reuters) - Almost 400 scientists have endorsed a civil disobedience campaign aimed at forcing governments to take rapid action to tackle climate change, warning that failure could inflict “incalculable human suffering.”

Source

I'm not a 'scientist' but isn't burning,looting,destroying private,public property bad for the environment ?

Because everyone knows that is what they mean by 'civil disobedience'.

a reply to: homerJ

This anti green movement has to stop.

I see no "anti-green" movement. What I see is a "pro-common-sense" movement.

I am a scientist. I am quite familiar with the principles being advanced... what carbon dioxide does, how it reacts, the heat balance of the planet, etc., etc., etc. And I am telling you that the carbon dioxide level has little if anything to do with any climatic occurrences. What you are seeing is just the normal chaotic noise in the system, but you are seeing it through the lens tinted by those who want you to fear the consequences of not bowing down to them.

The same thing has been used on the public for millennia. Rulers have maintained control by telling their subjects that without them, live would be horrible. Global Warming is just a new twist on a familiar tale that predates history. I'm sure somewhere there was a cave man who told his tribe members that if he wasn't followed they would be eaten by mammoths.

I keep hoping we have advanced enough to know better... but maybe not...

TheRedneck

a reply to: ChefFox
Well let me see. Their spokes person (notice that, gender neutral) a "scientist" (I've got a white coat so I'm a scientist) a Ms Emily Grossman, a science broadcaster (that aint no proof she's a scientist) and with a Phd in molecular biology. Well that Phd makes her an expert on climate change. NOT.
I would like to see the rest of these "scientists" Phds etc or whatever cos there's scientists and there's scientists.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: visitedbythem

So NASA is pushing a global warming hoax to push laws that will make no difference because the world will undergo a devastating cooling in 1 to 5 years???

Makes absolutely no sense.. Why push carbon tax and such if in 1 to five years global warming will be so obviously proven wrong?

Maybe it's just me, but ive heard so many failed weather doom predictions the past 10 years tgat it's hard to take this one seriously.

Carbon taxes and global warming are being pushed now because they know in a few years climatic cooling will actually occur. They will be able to say carbon taxing worked, so then declare a new tax to assist the world against global cooling.

If they wait and let the earth balance itself out, they lose control and power.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Just because they have four hundred scientists that say that there should be mass chaos does not mean those four hundred scientists are sane. Think about this, genius is just across the threshhold from crazy.

They need to define "Scientist". I was reading some of the 9-11 Truther BS that listed the names and professions of the so called "Engineers". Talk about comedy.

a reply to: JIMC5499

All scientists are not scientists. There is physics, biology, quantum physics, etc. All scientists should be familiar with the scientific method and some aspects of physics, but they specialize after that. A climate specialist will know much more about climate, but a biologist will know something about it.

The problem with Global Warming is not in the knowledge of those pushing it; it is in the methodology used to promote it. Before one can say that a specific cause is responsible for a specific problem, one must conduct a controlled experiment where the suspected cause is the only variable. That has not been done.

All of the furor is over the results of models. A model is nothing more than an algorithm (in the case of climate, because of the chaotic MIMO nature, that means a computer program) that tries to explain how a system works. If the model is accurate, it will make predictions for the future that will prove accurate; if it is not accurate, the predictions will not be accurate. Thus far, all of the climate models have demonstrated appreciable inaccuracy, meaning they are not accurate and must be adjusted. If they are not accurate, the assumptions made to create them are also not accurate. Those are the same assumptions being used to promote various carbon taxes and restrictions.

In simple terms, there has been no proof that carbon dioxide levels at the range we are experiencing have any adverse effect on the climate. Only assumptions that have defied proof.

I am an electrical engineer (now retired to personal projects) who specializes in research... hence the 'scientist.' I may not be an aerodynamic engineer, but I know enough about the principles involved to understand when someone is spewing BS instead of brilliance. An aerodynamic engineer can't do what I do, but they know enough to make the same judgement about me. So when you hear about some biologist who is claiming that Global Warming is real it means little, but one claiming that Global Warming is fake means a lot.

That's an actual inconvenient truth, but it simply is how things work.

TheRedneck