Daily Archives: August 21, 2022

General

The Truth About Climate Change: There Is NO Climate Emergency

Leave a comment

The Truth About Climate Change: 
There Is NO Climate Emergency

Large frameworks of science that don’t fit the narrative on climate change or global warming have been ignored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Conference of the Parties (COP), and self-interested scientists paid by taxpayers. A formidable industry has been subsidized, creating intermittent, unreliable wind and solar electricity based on unsubstantiated science. 

The same charlatans now want subsidized hydrogen, costly inefficient electric vehicles, subsidized mega-batteries, and other appallingly expensive tried and failed schemes that impoverish people, create unemployment, transfer wealth and enrich China. Many parts of the world like Germany, Texas, California, and the UK have already had a glimpse of the Net-Zero CO2 by 2050 policy with blackouts, astronomically high electricity costs, and hundreds of deaths. 

The sentiments above are from Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist and author in earth science who edifies his thoughts in his latest book, “Green Murder.” He’s part of the global network Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL), an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. It consists of over 1100 scientists and professionals that want to get the message out that there is no climate emergency. 

Furthermore, in 2019, the unelected, unaccountable, transnational World Economic Forum (WEF), which is also the main driver behind The Great Reset,  gave 16-year-old student Greta Thunberg a public stage, rendering her a poster child for climate change. Greta’s comments such as “I want you to panic”… “Our house is on fire,” terrified millions of children and adults worldwide. 

But in a testimony to the US Congress on April 21, 2021, Greta stated that there is “no science” behind her comment; it was just a metaphor. At no point has WEF or its media-mogul trustees apologized for foisting fear on world citizens. 

“Crickets” From WEF

CLINTEL, the climate intelligence think tank based in The Netherlands, sent a letter to Borge Brende, President of the WEF, in January 2020, calling for engagement on the issue of the claimed “climate emergency,” writing:

“Despite heated political rhetoric, we urge all world leaders to accept the reality that there is no climate emergency. There is ample time to use scientific advances to continue improving our society. Meanwhile, we should go for adaptation; it works whatever the causes [of climate change] are.”

“We also invite you to organize with us a constructive, open meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate. Such an event complies with the sound and ancient principle that all pertinent parties should be fully heard.”

There has been no response from the WEF to date. The WEF’s unwillingness to engage with CLINTEL in an open scientific debate on climate change suggests the WEF is not acting with “moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does,” as it claims.

On Dec. 24, 2021, CLINTEL also issued a letter to the President of Switzerland, concerned about the ‘host state’ status that Switzerland had bestowed on the World Economic Forum in January 2015. The Paris Agreement was signed that year, and it appears that WEF has adopted the mission to push the Club of Rome’s Planetary Emergency agenda.

The WEF’s 2006 Global Risks report.pdf featured oil price shock and pandemic as two severe global risks. However, by the 2020 report, WEF had removed both from the list of risks and replaced them with climate change.

Now the world is experiencing a global oil price shock, an energy crisis, and is struggling to recover from a pandemic. Millions of people face energy poverty and famine due to skewed energy investment markets, much of it driven by WEF trustees like Mark Carney demonizing vital energy.

Good vs. Evil

According to CLINTEL, climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out depends entirely on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science, most of this input is undeclared.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in.  This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In the future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.  

Below is the World Climate Declaration (WCD) CLINTEL has published that fall on deaf ears as far as the bureaucrats are concerned. This declaration is based on scientific fact and must be disseminated worldwide so that people are aware and not deceived by evil rhetoric, trickery, alarmist literature, and the greedy agenda of the elite few. 

There Is No Climate Emergency

A global network of over 1100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. 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 are now 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 global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they 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. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good 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. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be “prosperity for all” by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society, men and women are well educated, birth rates are low, and people care about their environment.

Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group are indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate, and competent view of climate change.

From now onward, the group is going to function as the “Global Climate Intelligence Group.” The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts.

World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf

World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH-SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
PROFESSOR JEFFREY FOSS † / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
SOTIRIS KAMENOPOULOS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH-SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH-SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA, AND MONTE NEGRO

 

Source and Research: 
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/ 
https://clintel.org/
https://friendsofscience.org/

 

 

Editor and Chief Markethive: Deb Williams. (Australia) I thrive on progress and champion freedom of speech. I embrace "Change" with a passion, and my purpose in life is to enlighten people to accept and move forward with enthusiasm. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.

 

 

 

 

 

Also published @ BeforeIt’sNews.com

 

General

The Reason Why Entrepreneurs Are Closer to God

Leave a comment

A Direct Line Upstairs

34% of entrepreneurs pray several times a day, compared with 27% of non-entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs Feel Closer to God Than the Rest of Us Do

The study: Mitchell J. Neubert and three colleagues at Baylor University investigated the connection between faith and the propensity to start a business, by examining data from a survey that queried 1,714 U.S. adults about their religious habits. They found that entrepreneurs prayed more frequently than other people and were more likely to believe that God was personally responsive to them.

The challenge: Do people who launch companies really feel a deeper connection to their deity than non-entrepreneurs? Professor Neubert, defend your research.

Neubert: Entrepreneurs seem to be more religious in a couple of small—but statistically significant—ways. They pray more—several times a week, on average—and are more likely to believe in an engaged, responsive God who takes a personal interest in them. You can see how the two might be related: If you think God cares about you, you’re more likely to talk to him. Entrepreneurs also are more apt to worship with a congregation that encourages business activity. On other measures—church affiliation, belief in God, and service attendance—they seem to be as religious as everyone else: Nearly nine out of 10 are affiliated with some religion. They attend church monthly, on average, and two-thirds say they have no doubt that God exists. But even those findings might surprise people who assume that hard-driving businesspeople are too busy or greedy to make time for religion.

HBR: Are you studying this because Baylor is a Christian university?
My colleagues, associate professors Kevin Dougherty and Jerry Park and graduate student Jenna Griebel, and I are studying it because entrepreneurs play a critical role in the American economy, so it’s crucial to understand what drives them. Yet research on their religious practices has been pretty sparse. A 2004 study of 44 Brooklyn entrepreneurs found that religiosity was positively correlated to personal ambition and innovation, and a 1985 study on first-generation Japanese-American men linked self-employment to family religious tradition and participation. But those were small samples, and other research, on workers in the UK and entrepreneurs in Colorado, has yielded contradictory findings.

We wanted to examine a random national sample—using the Baylor Religion Survey—and to look beyond affiliation and attendance into beliefs and behaviors. Just because someone goes to church doesn’t mean it’s salient in their lives. This was part of a multiphase project on religion and entrepreneurship supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

Did you look at Judaism, Islam, and other faiths too?
Our sample included respondents from all major religions. But in the U.S., even with a national sample, you’re talking about Christians predominantly, since the numbers of Muslims, Jews, and people of other religions, as well as atheists and agnostics, are so small.

So what do these entrepreneurs pray for?
Unfortunately, we don’t know the content of their prayers. Are they asking for energy, insight, success? They’re exposed to a lot more uncertainty and risk than the rest of us, so maybe they feel a need to pray more. Perhaps the pressure of starting and running a business to put food on the table heightens their spiritual leanings.

Or maybe people with greater faith in God are more willing to take risks.
Yes, I think there’s a confidence that can come from your religious beliefs. And maybe the individualism and autonomy associated with entrepreneurship are reflected in the idea of a more personal, direct relationship with God.

Your findings on congregations present another chicken-or-egg question: Do entrepreneurs gravitate to churches that are pro-business, or do those churches spur people to start companies?
We don’t know the direction of the relationship. Maybe entrepreneurs find a place where their mind-set is affirmed. Or maybe they’re influenced by their church peers and leaders. A community of faith surely provides social capital; it can be a source of customers, investors, employees, and encouragement and ideas. And some of these congregations really emphasize the integration of work and worship and financial planning, as well as running their churches in more innovative, businesslike ways. But, all that said, when we’ve asked entrepreneurs in follow-up interviews why they chose their churches, most have said location or friends and family. They haven’t said, “This is the most pro-­business congregation in the area.”

Perhaps your findings explain the growing popularity of social entrepreneurship.
Well, we know social entrepreneurs have a purpose beyond profit, and that could certainly come from spiritual beliefs. But among the 28.6% of people in our sample who had started or were trying to start a business, the vast majority had traditional motives: They wanted to work for themselves or sell a product or service that would earn them a good living.

You’ve shown a link between faith and entrepreneurial activity. But what about entrepreneurial success?
We did include some open-ended questions about profitability and other performance measures in a follow-up national survey, but a lot of people left those blank. Still, I think the issue merits further investigation, and we’ll explore it in future research. In another study that Baylor assistant professor Steve Bradley and I did on participants in microfinance programs in Africa and Indonesia, we found that the value people placed on their relationship with God and the way they treated others as a result—what we dubbed their “spiritual capital”—was associated with more innovation, higher revenues, and more employees in their businesses, even when controlling for skill sets and connections. We have another paper under review that delves a bit deeper into congregation characteristics and shows that members of groups that emphasize integrating faith into work are more entrepreneurial in, satisfied with, and committed to their jobs. Clearly, those sorts of employees contribute to the success of organizations.

So your findings hold true not just for entrepreneurs but also for entrepreneurial thinkers in established organizations?
Yes, we have found that people with religious beliefs are more engaged and entrepreneurial at work. Yet we don’t know specifically how this plays out. In the latest phase of our research, we’ve spent time with churchgoers in four areas of the U.S.: black Protestants in Texas, mainline Protestants in New Jersey, evangelicals in Michigan, and Catholics in California. Targeting two churches (one pro-business, one less so) in each locale, we interviewed 10 entrepreneurs and 10 full-time working professionals from all eight congregations, asking more specific questions about the impact that faith has on their work: Does it contribute to their success? How does it affect their behavior? Although we’re only starting our analyses, we have some confidence that people’s religious beliefs do play a role in how they work. The tendency for business leaders might be to ignore, dismiss, or discourage religion at the office. But that could mean missing out on a significant source of employee engagement and dedication. The challenge is to tap into people’s spirituality while still being inclusive of everyone.

A version of this article appeared in the October 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Mitchell J. Neubert is the Chavanne Chair of
Christian Ethics in Business and an associate
professor of management and
entrepreneurship at Baylor University.