agwrestler said:

---

How are those organizations funded?

They absolutely cannot provide an unbiased evaluation.

---

Quote:

---

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. CLINTEL's main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.

---

Quote:

---

Guus Berkhout, PhD, Founder of Clintel, and Dutch Engineer

He studied electrical engineering Delft University of Technology and obtained his degree in 1963. In 1970 he obtained a PhD cum laude in physics from the same university. In 1964 Berkhout started working for Royal Dutch Shell. In 1976 he returned to Delft University of Technology, and became a professor of acoustic imaging and sound control. During his time at Delft University Berkhout was the founder and scientific director of the Delphi Consortium, which does seismic research for a consortium of oil and gas companies. Berkhout was elected a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1990.

His Google Scholar does not turn up any climate-related research, only work on seismic and acoustic sciences.

---

Quote:

---

John F. Clauser, PhD, Nobel Laureate Professor and Clintel "Ambassador", and American theoretical physicist.

Known for Bell test experiments in quantum physics and quantum information science. PhD in physics from Columbia University in 1969. Clauser was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science." Sounds like he spent his academic career in the subatomic world, and in post-retirement has shifted to climate. In 2023 Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition, which has published papers on climate and energy-related issues. Funding from Koch Brothers, Heartland Institute, and various oil-and-gas institutions.

His Google Scholar is mainly comprised his theoretical physics work, unsurprisingly. His seminal 1969 paper on Bell experiments has been cited almost 10,000 times!

---

Quote:

---

Ivan Giaever, PhD, Nobel Laureate Professor and Clintel "Ambassador", and Norwegian-American engineer and physicist.

Giaever is a professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the president of the company Applied Biophysics. While working for General Electric, earned a PhD at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1964. Giaever shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1973 "for discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in solids". Giaever's share of the prize was specifically for his "experimental discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors. Several other prestigious awards in physics and engineering. Advisor with Heartland Institute.

His Google Scholar profile, like Clauser's, seems to be unrelated to climate but many publications in well-known scientific journals.

---

Quote:

---

Thomas Lindsay Blanton, PhD in Tectonophysics, Texas A&M University.

Over 40 years experience as an advisor and consultant in geomechanics specializing in compaction, subsidence, and lithospheric stress determination. Consultant at Reservoir Mechanics, LLC. Guessing O&G exploration. Maybe he posts on TexAgs!

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

fixer said:

---

1609 political hacktivists with science degrees.

---

My original post was asking why I should believe the 1,609 scientists over the many many more scientist who came to opposite conclusions.

---

How many "conspiracy theories" about COVID and "The Science is settled" bull**** turned out to be 100% true and was called by most critical thinking people from the jump?

You arent following "Science" you are following a narrative. Again.

---

Seriously, no one can provide a strong argument for why these signatories should be trusted over the organizations I listed?

I see now that a lot of the signatories aren't even scientists. This makes me even more skeptical.

---

Old McDonald said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

Oxy sure got some climate BS money. What you say does not jibe with the advertisements from big oil advertising how environmentally resposible they are and kneeling to kiss the evil ring.

---

that's all corporate greenwashing advertising to appease the public and activist investors. overwhelming majority of O&G capital investment still goes to hydrocarbons.

---

wxmanX said:

---

yea, whatever.

World is 1.6C above the mean, NATL highest temps ever, Gulf highest temps ever. Record warm TX, highest lows ever in Baton Rouge, Tampa, Miami, PHX this year.
Morrocco 122F, highest ever.
Greece, 119F highest ever.
Spain 118F tied highest ever.

---

ts5641 said:

---

This document has already been shredded. Nothing to see here.

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The change creates problems, opportunities, challenges, troubles.

It's happening, but not to any extent that we cannot deal with and adapt to.
It's a matter of limited resources, MANY priorities to consider with environmental changes and outside of that.
Cost / benefit
Benefits /detriments
Spend a lot now or be patient and allow technology to develop to help us deal with problems more efficiently and cost effectively
Realize most human environmental destruction is caused by poor people living very inefficiently and destructively, and cheap energy is the thing that does the most to improve standards of living, and by extension, creating opportunity to care about matters beyond survival, such as pollution.

The problem isn't the data. The problem is the neurotic paranoia over the very unlikely apocalyptic scenarios that are valuable to political radicals trying to manipulate the population with fear.

---

wxmanX said:

---

i'm not even a liberal.
Voted republican since I was born.

Just know the science is correct. Later.

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

wxmanX said:

---

yea, whatever.

World is 1.6C above the mean, NATL highest temps ever, Gulf highest temps ever. Record warm TX, highest lows ever in Baton Rouge, Tampa, Miami, PHX this year.
Morrocco 122F, highest ever.
Greece, 119F highest ever.
Spain 118F tied highest ever.

---

ShinerAggie said:

---

Not that scientists or data are going to be able to sway a political debate:

"There Is No Climate Crisis"…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration

Quote:

---

1609 signatories recently signed a declaration that states there is no climate crisis, thus casting doubt over man's alleged role in climate change and extreme weather.

---

Quote:

---

There is no climate emergency
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adaptation instead of mitigation; adaptation works
whatever the causes are."

---

Link to the document:
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

---

4stringAg said:

---

Buying into climate change and the green movement is essentially admitting you want to be poorer and have more gov't control in your life. Because that's what it boils down to. The solutions offered by Democrats are about control and enriching a select few who don't have to follow the rules; these solutions often ensure that many of us who are just average joe's trying to live our lives and pay our bills on time have less money to pay those bills and more time subjected to energy shortages, rolling blackouts, and other daily life altering inconveniences.

**** that.

---

Old McDonald said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

As with everything, follow the money. The same people who made a mint lieing about covid are the same people lieing about a climate crisis.

---

and a majority of the time, following the money on the climate change denial side of the debate brings you to the oil and gas industry. what are we to do? it's agendas and ulterior motives and shadow money all the way down!

---

Oxy sure got some climate BS money. What you say does not jibe with the advertisements from big oil advertising how environmentally resposible they are and kneeling to kiss the evil ring.

---

that's all corporate greenwashing advertising to appease the public and activist investors. overwhelming majority of O&G capital investment still goes to hydrocarbons.

---

Quote:

---

FACULTY STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M University has extensive knowledge about the Earth's climate. As employees of a state university, it is our responsibility to offer our expertise on scientific issues that are important to the citizens of Texas, including whether and why the climate is changing.

We agree with the following conclusions based on current evidence:

1. The Earth's climate is warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. Average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 2F between 1880 and 2022.

2. Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming. Natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity, have likely had little cumulative effect over this period.

3. On our current trajectory, the increase in global average temperature this century will exceed the Paris Agreement's goal of staying well below 3.6F.
Continued increases of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures present the risk of serious challenges to human society and ecosystems. It is difficult to quantify such challenges, except to say that the potential magnitudes of impacts increase rapidly as the magnitude of global warming increases.

This statement was unanimously adopted by the faculty in February 2023. It is in effect until next IPCC report or until revised.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch
The American Geophysical Union statement on climate change: https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate
The American Meteorological Society statement on climate change: https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

---

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

It doesn't have to be the Green New Deal or nothing. We do live on this planet. There are 8 billion of us and left unchecked we clearly could do some damage.

---

etxag02 said:

---

Someone needs to tell the university. Those poor kids are going to be corrupted.

Quote:

---

FACULTY STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The faculty of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M University has extensive knowledge about the Earth's climate. As employees of a state university, it is our responsibility to offer our expertise on scientific issues that are important to the citizens of Texas, including whether and why the climate is changing.

We agree with the following conclusions based on current evidence:

1. The Earth's climate is warming, meaning that the temperatures of the lower atmosphere and ocean have been increasing over many decades. Average global surface air temperatures warmed by about 2F between 1880 and 2022.

2. Our best estimate is that humans are responsible for most or all of this warming. Natural factors, such as solar variability, unforced variability, or volcanic activity, have likely had little cumulative effect over this period.

3. On our current trajectory, the increase in global average temperature this century will exceed the Paris Agreement's goal of staying well below 3.6F.
Continued increases of atmospheric and oceanic temperatures present the risk of serious challenges to human society and ecosystems. It is difficult to quantify such challenges, except to say that the potential magnitudes of impacts increase rapidly as the magnitude of global warming increases.

This statement was unanimously adopted by the faculty in February 2023. It is in effect until next IPCC report or until revised.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: http://www.ipcc.ch
The American Geophysical Union statement on climate change: https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate
The American Meteorological Society statement on climate change: https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change1/

---

https://today.tamu.edu/2020/11/17/texas-am-joins-a-global-call-for-net-zero-emissions/

---

Quote:

---

Tonga Eruption Blasted Unprecedented Amount of Water Into Stratosphere

The huge amount of water vapor hurled into the atmosphere, as detected by NASA's Microwave Limb Sounder, could end up temporarily warming Earth's surface.

---

Quote:

---

LOL. One year's worth of data doesn't make it a crisis. and certainly doesn't point to any manmade causes. When we have a cooler summer in a year or two, does that mean we've solved the climate problem?

---

GenericAggie said:

---

By definition, science is never settled. It's ever changing. this is the problem with the left.

Whenever they say, "the science is settled", I immediately know it's politically motivated.

---

etxag02 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

By definition, science is never settled. It's ever changing. this is the problem with the left.

Whenever they say, "the science is settled", I immediately know it's politically motivated.

---

What about when all the intelligent arguments have been exhausted and you are left with the pseudo-science arguments? That's where we are now. No respectable university teaches what most here believe. That includes TAMU.

---