Fake News British Climate Professors Protest Against Trump

Written by Ferret Journalists

trump

Leading ‘scientists’ have presented a cheeky challenge to Donald Trump’s denial of climate change in Aberdeenshire. Four ‘professors’ turned up yesterday at the US President’s controversial golf resort at Menie on the northeast coast to hand over a Ladybird guide to climate change and a Royal Meteorological Society statement on climate science.

They are angry at Trump’s trashing of climate ‘science’, his appointment of climate deniers and his plan to withdraw from international agreements to cut carbon pollution. They point out that his golf course is at risk from climate change, as well as the world.

The protest was led by Aberdeen University professor Pete Smith, who was a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “We all share the same atmosphere, so misguided actions in the US will not only affect Americans, they will affect everyone on the planet,” he said.

“We cannot allow decisions based upon ideology to replace those based on scientific evidence.” Smith convened a meeting to discuss climate change at Aberdeen University yesterday as part of British ‘science’ week.

He added: “Failing to act when you are in full possession of the facts, which amounts to wilful ignorance, is inexcusable, and will cause great damage the world we leave for our children and grandchildren.”

Professor Terence Dawson from King’s College London, warned that East Africa countries were facing severe droughts this year which could cause a major humanitarian disaster. Climate change was going to make droughts worse, and hit the poorest people hardest.

“Climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction and we, as scientists, feel a moral imperative to urge our political leaders act now – inaction or delay is inexcusable,” he said.

Professor Piers Forster from the University of Leeds was worried that US policies were threatening ‘science’ by cutting funding for climate research. He pointed out that’scientists’ around the world depended on the work done by Nasa and others in the US.

“More than ever we should be basing decisions on evidence rather than ideologies, and I hope the US administration wakes up and realises this,” he said.

Professor Jo Smith from Aberdeen University urged political leaders not to gamble with lives. “Climate change will mean more droughts and floods, and more people will die,” she said. “The ‘science’ is clear, so climate policies must be based on this evidence.”

The four professors were accompanied on their visit to Menie by Dr Jo House from the University of Bristol, and the Aberdeenshire councillor and Trump critic, Martin Ford. Their presentation was accepted on behalf of Trump International Golf Links Scotland by head of hospitality, Yashinee Aulum.

She was “courteous and welcoming and was pleased to receive our presentation”, the professors said.

Read more at dropping.theferret.scot

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Hans Schreuder

    |

    Thanks Carl. All the usual climate alarmist warnings are exactly the opposite of reality as we know it. But like a bird born in a cage, these climate scientists do not know the freedom of choice that we enjoy as a matter of routine. These “scientists” are trapped within their own world of echo-chamber “science” where the “greenhouse effect” exists and where carbon dioxide causes warming beyond what the power of the sun provides. They have proven to be incapable of free thought, cramped in as they are by their much-hyped “peer review” process.

  • Avatar

    Carl Brehmer

    |

    “his appointment of climate deniers” The new EPA director does not deny the existence of climate

    “his plan to withdraw from international agreements to cut carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is not “pollution”; it is that upon which organic life depends

    “We cannot allow decisions based upon ideology to replace those based on scientific evidence.” True. They should be doing the presentation in front of a mirror

    “Failing to act when you are in full possession of the facts, which amounts to wilful ignorance, is inexcusable, and will cause great damage the world we leave for our children and grandchildren.” Acting on falsified science is inexcusable and will cause great damage to the world we leave for our children and grandchildren.

    “Climate change was going to make droughts worse, and hit the poorest people hardest.” Their hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is based on the notion that more carbon dioxide in the air will prompt more water to be evaporated into water vapor and their hypothesis is that this increase in water vapor will cause catastrophic global warming. How can an increase in water vapor make a drought worse, since a drought by definition is a dearth of water vapor? Deserts have sparse life, not because of the heat, but rather because of the scarcity of water.

    “Climate change is a serious risk to poverty reduction” The greatest risk that “the poor” face today are the energy policies of this group who would deprive the world of its primary source of wealth production, i.e., hydrocarbon energy

    “More than ever we should be basing decisions on evidence rather than ideologies” True. They should do the presentation in front of a mirror.

    “The science is clear” What did the Cook 2013 study say? 97% of all scientists who believe that human activity is causing global warming believe that human activity was the primary cause of 20th century global warming. The other ~66% remained silent on the subject. Thus the “consensus” claim is based on the logical fallacy called “argumentum e silentio” or argument from silence in which one draws a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent. The “consensus” claim is itself the logical fallacy called “argumentation ad populum” or appeal to the people, which is “a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: ‘If many believe so, it is so.'” wikipedia

    Thus we have one fallacious argument based upon another fallacious argument.

Comments are closed