Christopher,
The Communique from a science conference should reflect not the majority of participants' personal opinions, but data- and math-based findings of reported research. After all, the purpose of a science conference is not to report a consensus on a topic, but to highlight new study results with significant implications for the science field in question.
How many times do we have to go through the same soft-ball (vanilla) approach in criticizing IPCC before realizing that it's NOT working? Can you or anyone else name 3 recommendations made by CLINTEL conferences in the past that have been taken into account by IPCC or somehow influenced the IPCC's approach to climate change?
Was it Einstein, who famously said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?
Isn't it time to reconsider the methods employed by skeptics thus far to combat the IPCC's AGW insanity?
- Ned
On 11/28/24 3:17 PM, Christopher Monckton wrote:
The draft communique was drawn up at the end of the conference by one of Clintel's co-founders with my assistance, and was intended to reflect the results reported by those of the scientists at the conference whose work had found favour with the overwhelming majority. The draft was approved by the chairman of the conference before it was circulated. At the chairman's request, a controversial suggestion that heteroatomic and hence radiatively-active gases do not influence temperature at all was put to a vote and, by an overwhelming majority, was excluded. My own team's result was also excluded, but without being put to a vote, because it is in a field with which most participants were unfamiliar, and some prominent sceptics disagree with it, though no one at the conference did so.
Those who consider that the majority were incorrect are entitled to their opinion, but the majority agreed with the draft of the communique and put their names to it. Suggestions that science is not done by vote are correct but inapposite. If participants are to sign their names to a communique, as the majority wished to do, they must of course agree with what they are putting their names to. It is really as simple as that. CLINTEL is not a dictatorship - Christopher
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Hobbit Court, Dyrham, Chippenham, SN14 8HE
Tel. 0117 937 4155: cell +44 7814 556423
monckton@mail.com
Dear Kees,
Describing climate change with high precision has little to do with showing the physical insolvency of the "greenhouse" theory. The fact that this 19th-Century concept proposed before the discovery of the Gas Law is fundamentally wrong can be shown numerically using modern NASA data and the Laws of Thermodynamics, which we have conclusively done in our published papers... One has just to spend some time studying these papers rather than just reading the Abstracts.
And yes, we do have a new, alternative, full-fledged physical climate theory that accurately explains:
a) The true nature of so-called "Greenhouse Effect" not just on Earth but also on all rocky planets & moons with atmospheres in the Solar System. We call it Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement or ATE;
b) The polar amplifications observed in proxy-based geological records of Earth going back 100+ million years and the mega drivers of Earth's paleoclimate;
c) The immediate cause of the observed modern warming during the past 150 years verified against CERES satellite data from the last 24 years.
Please, spend a month or so studying our published papers (in 2014, 2017, and 2024) and these science videos:
- Demystifying the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
- Drivers of Earth's Paleoclimate
Learning a new paradigm takes a significant amount of mental effort, but it's rewarding to those willing to go through the process.
In addition, our new climate concept identifies specific areas of research, where funding should be allocate to advance of climate science. Providing such a practical guidance is another valuable feature of our novel paradigm.
Regards,
-Ned Nikolov
On 11/28/24 12:26 PM, clepair@casema.nl wrote: Dr. Nikolov,
Your message to CLINTEL’s president supposes that we can only put an end to the disastrous CO2-hunt, if we understand the Earth’s climates. If true, this would be catastrophic. Because understanding and describing that system with a precision of average temperatures better than some 5 oC is beyond our capabilities. The system is too complex and any one-factor attempt, like CO2, H2O, volcanoes, oceanic currents, solar input, atmospheric dynamics etc. is doomed to fail. Below I shall try to explain a little better what and why .
Leaders and public must be convinced that falsifying the CO2-story, like any other hypothesis or theory, can be done, and has been done, in many other ways, common in science. Such as: showing wrong arithmetic or wrong logic, difference with measurements, or other facts, wrong physical assumptions… . If excellent one-actor studies show, that their influence on energy transport through our habitable shell is of the same order, or stronger than that of CO2, you have an
argument for disbelief in the CO2-story. But you still do not have a true climate theory.
I think that making leaders and public understand that the “CO2-theory” has been duly falsified and present science is not able to describe climate precise enough for policy purposes, is our only honest message.
SOME EXPLAINING NOTES
1. GEOTRIAD. The real magnitude of the Earth’s “greenhouse”>>30 oC. The dominant processes.
https://www.clepair.net/GreenhousClP-Eng.html
2. CLIMATE RESEARCH ON SYSTEM & ACTORS https://www.clepair.net/climate_system_and_actors.html
3. COMPLEXITY
https://www.clepair.net/complexity.html
Please note: Your message contains some laudable truisms, but also some not substantiated opinions. I highlighted a few words in your text rather unusual in thought exchanges about physics. By the way, did you check the credentials of the persons editing the communique? If not, they deserve some excuse. Do you realise that your text could be harmful to the scientific climate realist message?
Regards, Kees.
Dr. C. (Kees) le Pair
Smient 27
3435VJ Nieuwegein
T: +3130 6049 006
E: clepair@casema.nl
W: http://www.clepair.net/
Van: Ned Nikolov <ntconsulting@comcast.net>
Verzonden: donderdag 28 november 2024 6:44
Aan: CLINTEL GROUP
Onderwerp: Re: Prague conference
Dear Guus,
Thank you for the politically correct statement!
I think that the truth about climate can only be revealed by vetted observations and objective, rigorous data analysis. CLINTEL scientists should learn to distinguish findings obtained through such an approach from personal opinions and wild guesses in the form of unsupported hypotheses.
Another important point to keep in mind for future conferences is that nonscientists (i.e. political activists with no formal training in physical sciences) should not be allowed to lead/moderate science discussions or influence the content of final documents issued by CLINTEL science conferences. The current Communique is a good example of this. It was drafted by non-scientists prior to the end of the conference, which effectively defeats the purpose of the conference itself.
Third, a diversity of approaches to data analyses should be encouraged and participating scientists should not be asked to form a "consensus" by voting on a topic. Science is not an exercise in democracy, but a method to finding the truth about physical phenomena through objective data analysis and adherence to known physical laws.
Finally, the message "there is no climate emergency" while scientifically correct, is not sufficient anymore to have a lasting impact, let alone capable of derailing the IPCC agenda. The missing part in this message is a sound explanation as to why the IPCC climate models are unreliable and unsuitable for guiding economic policies. Arguing about the magnitude of warming or the quality of temperature records without addressing the fundamental fallacies of the current climate theory is not going to stop or even slowdown the UN Bureaucracy.
I invite everyone to start deeply contemplating on these issues...
Regards,
-Ned Nikolov
On 11/16/2024 3:04 AM, CLINTEL GROUP wrote:
Dear friends and colleagues,
A two-day climate conference was organised by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) on November 12 and 13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague A communiqué was drafted by the scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference. The communiqué declares that for several decades climate scientists have systematically exaggerated the influence of CO2 on global temperature. It concludes that the imagined and imaginary “climate emergency” is at an end.
.
For the press release and the communiqué see:
Climate scientists officially declare ‘climate emergency’ at an end clintel.org
The conference also revealed that there still exists a wide variety of views about the causes of climate change within Clintel. For some of the scientists at the conference this diversity of views was a disappointing experience. In my capacity of president, I have summarised my vision on this important topic:
Clintel represents a great group of scientists who have signed the World Climate Declaration. You have all developed valuable explanations of climate change, but none of you can claim to have the right answer. The climate system is just too complex. I consider the sometimes large differences in the theories as a blessing for the Clintel community. Only a critical dialogue will bring us closer to the truth. In other words, we need each other's differences for progress.
The science is not settled at all. We need a diversity of theories to come closer to the truth, whatever that truth may be. By staying respectful to each other and by being grateful to be part of this diverse group of excellent scientists, we will be very successful.
Regularly, we need to let the world know our progress and we need to explain that our research results consistently show that the IPCC climate models cannot be used in climate policies. The conference in Prague was an opportunity to do just that.
It is impossible as well as unwise to make a clear communiqué that represents all our views. Such a communiqué would be incomprehensible to the outside world. I consider the Prague Communiqué an excellent summary of what was discussed over there. I hope that it will give rise to ample post-conference comments, also from Clintel scientists that were not present in Prague. And above all, I hope it will inspire all of you in your current research.
Clintel's plan is to have a similar conference in The Netherlands in 2025.
Best regards,
Guus Berkhout, president