
Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres - novalis78
https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientists-warn-un-secretary-general-guterres/
======
bristleworm
From Wikipedia: "Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing
that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero
carbon emissions being made to law. The campaign features a number of
academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as
well as members from oil and gas companies" I'll just let this stand for
itself...

~~~
alecmg
Does labeling them wholesale as "having ties to deniers and oil and gas" make
their arguments irrelevant?

~~~
Beltiras
It makes their arguments suspect. Money tends to have that effect.

~~~
ybalkind
There is money on both sides of the argument though.

The following is from
[https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-d...](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2019-07-24-the-
dangers-of-news-media-overplaying-climate-change/)

As climate scientist William Briggs observes: “Global warming alarmism is big
business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature
Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate
Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who
solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who
in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

“You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and
Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies,
spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates —
billions of dollars.”

There are also innumerable “green technology” companies, from solar and wind
energy manufacturers, to battery makers and electric car companies, to lithium
miners and biofuel farmers, that benefit handsomely from climate alarmism, and
donate freely to the groups that will advance their marketing shtick. There is
arguably more money in green alarmism than there is in skepticism.

~~~
Beltiras
It took me a while to realize the conceit of this post. I took it seriously
because you are absolutely right that there is money on both sides. The
difference between the camps is that one has data supporting their argument
while the other does not. Climate denial is supported by money and ignorance.
Climate science is supported by a big grassroots efforts both by citizens and
scientists AND the _data_. I hope in the long run this camp wins out because I
would like my grandchildren to have a shot at correcting my generations
mistakes.

Here's Phil Plait tearing William Briggs apart [1]. If you can call him an
authority on climate science, I can call the Bad Astronomer an authority on
science discussion.

[1]
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-b...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/tag/william-
briggs/#.XZNUnh_nhhE)

~~~
Yetanfou
You use terms like _climate denial_ and _climate science_ as if they mean
something. You also simply state that _we are right and they are wrong_ as
well as give an _emphasized_ hint that _the data_ supports your claims.

If you read what these people (and many others with them) say you'd see that
they also claim their position is staved by _the data_. They call for an
opportunity to discuss these matters in public, without being shunned in the
way you just did. If their ideas are as faulty as you seem to think they are
your side would have nothing to lose by going into this discussion.

This rhetoric is part of what makes the 'climate change' movement look like a
religion. Blind discipline, a statement of fact which can not be discussed,
shunning of those who dare to differ, making a clear _us versus them_
distinction with terms like _climate science_ versus _climate denial_. You can
even buy off you sins by paying for _climate compensation_.

Yes, the climate is changing as it has been doing for as long as there is a
climate. Human activity has influence over the climate in many ways ranging
from soot deposits on snow and ice fields (which warms them up) through local
warming by direct emission to the emission of IR-active gases like CO₂ and
CH₄. The role of CO₂ is disputable, it is not a strong 'greenhouse gas'. CH₄
_is_ a strong greenhouse gas, as is water vapour. Condensed water (in the form
of clouds) has the opposite effect by raising the planet's albedo (reflection
coefficient). The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen since the end of
the little ice age, partly due to human activity by burning fossil fuels,
partly due to the increase in sea water temperature. How much of the rise is
due to human activity is unclear, estimates range from 15 ppm (i.e. hardly
anything) to nearly everything. The models used by the IPCC are incomplete (as
all models are) and the predicted rise in global temperature turned out to be
overstated by a large margin.

In 1972 a group of scientists at Brown University decided _the science was
clear_ on the fact that (I quote) _the present rate of the cooling seems fast
enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing as the
present pace_ and sent a letter to then-president Nixon to warn him of the
consequences of _a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude
larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind_. They were right in
that a new ice will come but they were not correct in their estimate on _when_
that would happen - Nixon did not have much to worry over in that respect.

There was no global public internet in 1972, there were no social media, there
was no opportunity for celebrities to signal their social engagement and
virtue by standing up and proclaiming that the time had come for all good men
and women to act now or risk freezing in the impeding global climate
catastrophe. The ice age scare largely was confined to a group of scientists
with a few articles popping up here and there about increasing glacial masses
and early winter snows. Had there _been_ a global public internet in the early
70's and had Joan Baez, Sly and the Family Stone, Jimi Hendrix, Crosby,
Stills, Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell and all the others spoken up... who
knows what this would have led to. Imagine a second Woodstock 'for the
climate', the public chanting 'no snow no snow no snow' instead of their
previous rain-obverse incantation. Just imagine.

Also, don't treat this subject like a religion. It isn't. It is an important
subject which should be subjected to all the rigours of the scientific method.
That method does not tolerate dogma nor the shunning of differing voices. It
is the observation which disproves your hypothesis you want to look for, not
the opposite.

~~~
Beltiras
It's not a religion. We not only have data we also have the visceral reactions
when confronted with real-world examples of what climate change is doing
_right now_.

I was a bit shocked when I heard that the Greenland glacier is melting from
the _bottom_. Arctic waters are feeding energy under it. It is melting at a
higher rate than ever recorded before [1].

Here's a fun fact. Last 5 years are the hottest on record [2].

Tuvalu is sinking [3].

This isn't theoretical anymore. The change is coming, fast.

[1] [https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/17/the-
gree...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/17/the-greenland-
ice-sheet-is-melting-unusually-fast)

[2]
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/2018-...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/2018-fourth-
warmest-year-ever-noaa-nasa-reports/)

[3] [https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/world/tuvalu-
cli...](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/world/tuvalu-climate-
change-cnnphotos/)

~~~
Yetanfou
Glaciers always melt from the bottom (or at least appear to do so) since that
is where the water goes. Parts of Greenland's glaciers are actually growing
[1].

Here's a strange fact: the last 5 years are only the hottest on record when
compared to _recent_ historical temperature data. Compared to previous
historical temperature data (over the same period) the last 5 years are
comparable to but not as extreme as the hot period in the mid-30's. This
discrepancy started when meteorological institutions in parts of the world
started 'correcting' their historical temperature records. The claimed reason
for these corrections - which lower past temperatures while raising recent
ones - is that they are necessary to make historical measurements comparable
to recent and current ones. This claim has been tested and found wanting in
the case of the Dutch meteorological office, KNMI [2 (in Dutch)]. NOAA in the
US does the same type of corrections which are being criticised for being
excessive but I have not yet found an impartial and detailed report laying out
where exactly they went wrong.

Finally: Tuvalu is growing, not sinking [3].

[1]
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-p...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-
part-of-greenland-ice-growing/)

[2]
[https://klimaatgek.nl/document/De%20homogenisatie%20van%20De...](https://klimaatgek.nl/document/De%20homogenisatie%20van%20De%20Bilt%20def.pdf)

[3] [https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-
bigger.html](https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html)

------
sawaruna
>A group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-
founder Guus Berkhout

Well let's see who this is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guus_Berkhout)

> Augustinus Johannes "Guus" Berkhout (born 1940) is a Dutch engineer who has
> worked for the oil and gas industry, and as a professor. Berkhout started
> his career working for Shell.

> In 2019, Berkhout founded the climate change denial organization Climate
> Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL).

~~~
ohduran
Sounds a lot like Thomas Midgley Jr[1], inventor of leaded gasoline - followed
by a ferocious PR campaign against banning it, and CFCs - same.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr).

~~~
rudiv
Somewhat fitting that he was killed by his own invention (not tetraethyllead
or freon). I remember hearing about him from Stephen Fry on QI.

~~~
ohduran
A Brief History of Nearly Everything goes over the story. An amazing, very
recommended read.

------
Gys
The misleading title has some suggestion the letter is from the UN. But its a
letter send to the UN.

The original title is 'Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General
Guterres'. Already in the first sentence the story weakens further by
explaining the 500 include 'professionals' as well - which can be anybody with
a job, basicly.

------
dvfjsdhgfv
I can't say much about the arguments themselves as I'm not competent enough,
but many people on the list are not scientists, and many of those who are
specialize in fields very distant from climate change.

------
jerome-jh
"500 scientists and professionals" so title is voluntarily misleading. Overall
there are much fewer than 50% physical science doctors.

~~~
Beltiras
500 also sounds like so many when in reality it's a very small number.

------
airbreather
Interesting how challenging science is framed as "denial" rather than
"questioning".

~~~
Beltiras
Many of the signatories are not climate scientists. Lead signatory is an
engineer that worked for oil and gas his entire life.

~~~
airbreather
Often the best questions come from someone outside the field.

Just because someone has a degree in a certain subject does not make them the
only one that can ask questions about that subject.

This is called "White coat syndrome".

~~~
colinb
"often" is a weasel word here. How about "sometimes"? Sometimes good questions
come from outside a field. Nevertheless, when I'm suffering from a serious
medical condition, I prefer to see a medical doctor. When my central heating
packs up, I call a licensed gas-fitter.

Argument from authority seems like a bad plan. But arguing against someone
_because_ they have authority seems worse.

~~~
airbreather
However, we are not talking about treatment or repairs, so poor if not
irrelevant comparisons.

It is recognised that the most valuable person/s in review panels are the rank
outsiders that ask the questions that are considered already answered or too
outlandish to consider.

There are a number of studies I can't be arsed to dig up, however Feynman and
the challenger investigation is one slightly oblique example.

Outsiders do not have the fear of pointing at the elephant in the room.

------
martincollignon
I'm astonished by the randomness of expertise among the signees.

[https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-
conse...](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-
consensus.htm)

------
berbec
I guess we need a Project Steve [1] for climate change.

1: [https://ncse.ngo/project-steve](https://ncse.ngo/project-steve)

------
lerno
... and then the actual arguments included are basically things already
convincingly refuted. But hey, repeat a lie enough times...

------
RickJWagner
I wish we could stop attacking the character of the scientists and instead
consider the merit of their arguments.

I find it disturbing that so many people criticize some of the signers for
ties to gas and oil, or to 'denier' groups. Yes, that just means they have had
reason to study the issues. It does not mean they are evil or crazy.

Does what they say make sense?

~~~
ryansmccoy
This is an interesting point. I know nothing about climate science but do know
a little about human behavior. I often had to figure out whether I thought a
CEO was good at running a company or full of shit. So, the difficult part for
me is figuring out what is true.

One thing I often try to figure out who/what is incentivizing/motivating
people to hold their viewpoint. While it's easy for people to see the oil/gas
money, isn't the other side, and obviously, correct me if I’m wrong, also
being incentivized/motivated by grants for academic studying and clean energy
companies?

Another thing I often look at is the track record of people, especially if
they are making predictions about the future. I’ve found that it’s a good
indicator of how they will act in the future.

