Over 1000 Scientists and Professionals Sign Formal Declaration: “There is No Climate Emergency”
“There is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050.
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that relatively early on in the covid pandemic cycle, leading infectious disease experts created the Great Barrington Declaration.
The formal declaration stressed that lockdowns were destructive and “focused protection” of vulnerable individuals was the way to properly address the highly infectious, novel virus. Over 4000 scientists, including a good number of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, signed the document.
It turns out these scientists were correct.
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest.
Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are currently dying each week from conditions other than the virus.
The Telegraph understands that the Department of Health has ordered an investigation into the figures amid concern that the deaths are linked to delays to and deferment of treatment for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
Perhaps it is time to consider if the World Climate Declaration, which has been signed by 1,200 climate scientists and related professionals, may be something to seriously consider, promote, and act on. In the document, these scientists affirm that there is “no climate emergency.”
The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.
The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd.
Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”
The declaration is being promoted by the CLINTEL Group, which plans to give “solicited and unsolicited” advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
I am thinking that most of the advice they will give will be unsolicited. Here is hoping that policy makers, teachers, and everyone else listen to the group’s many points:
- Natural causes contribute to climate changes.
- Warming has been slower than predicted.
- Climate policy is being based on inadequate models.
- Carbon dioxide is plant food, and the basis for life on Earth.
- Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Perhaps the last point the CLINTEL Group makes is the most critical: 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, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
For those of you with a background in the climate sciences, and who would like to sign, information to do so is HERE.
If “Green New Deal” polices are allowed to continue, they will be even more destructive on this nation and the world than the covid policies have been.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well now, these 1200 won’t be getting their bit of graft.
They’ll be denounced and cancelled if this thing gets any burn in the mainstream at all.
What a cult-based, get-rich scam. Got to admire the audacity of the perpetrators.
More like these 1200 are just downplaying “emergency”, but they, in a subtle way, admit that man made global warming is real! This document is almost as sneaky as the Oregon Petition where 3100 “scientists” affirm that there is no “catastrophic” climate change. Note that the title is “There is no climate emergency”. If they really believe that man’s activity does no cause climate change, then the title should be “There is no man made climate change”. Must be disappointing to many skeptics out there. Note also that the first key point is “Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming” which again says that anthropogenic activitities cause global warming and natural causes also contribute. Another key point is “CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth” which is just a common sense statement. It also says that “CO2 is not a pollutant”. But nobody says CO2 is a pollutant except these 1100 people! Climate scientists don’t say that CO2 is a pollutant, but they only say that increases CO2 traps more heat in the atmosphere. Another key point “Warming is far slower than predicted” is not really correct. Some models predict slower warming while other models predict faster warming. The petition only refer to the faster models. The main man behind the petition Professor Ivar Giaever got a Nobel Prize in tunneling phenomenon and is not a specialist on climate. The main climate scientist of the 1100 is Professor Richard Lindzen. Yet, Lindzen is known to say openly that CO2 does warm the climate. His main complain is that the models are inadequate. Overall, this petition is attempting to put a shade on the increasing signs of climate change, and also attempting to pull resource away from climate change and put more resources into economic growth.
Well, of course, they would not state that there is no man-made climate change. The government has been doing just that for decades. As a matter of fact, there is a law (Public Law 92-205 (1972)) requiring all non-Federal weather modification activities must be reported to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, via the NOAA Weather Program Office.
I have posted comments that basically says, “these 1200 scientists are really saying that they think man made global warming is real but they think that it is not an emergency”. That is a reasonable interpretation of their declaration. Yet, my posts have been censored. Will the censors explain their actions???
Leftist are not going to like this so will smother it with a pillow
And might get them throw into a Gulag soon for climate denial
If only David Hogg would respond to their voicemails.
Climate based healthcare protocols advise for the abortion of this article.
Won’t you think of the children?
Those sweet sweet soybased they/thems.
The worst volcano eruption took place earlier this year on near Tonga sending a plume up to a record high of over 36 miles.
https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/what-we-do/disasters/disasters-activations/tonga-volcanic-eruption-tsunami-2022
This is the most polluting eruption since Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 and among the worst ever.
And then we have that eruption going on in Iceland which may blow its lid. I wonder how these measure up against pollution emitted by humans?
It is reported that the tonga eruption was a major global warming event due to the amount of water injected into the stratosphere. Weakened the ozone layer.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/04/tonga-volcano-eruption-can-fill-58000-olympic-size-swimming-pools/
Incredible photos. Could take up to ten years for the water to dissipate.
All those SUVs in Tonga are responsible. Just horrible.
This is worse than when Musk put a Tesla into orbit.
Man, you really have to be a snowflake to down vote THAT comment. LOL
They drive them under the volcano?
Funny thing about volcanoes- they pollute, and yet without them there would be no atmosphere on earth.
Greta Thunberg is jumping up and down screaming, “How dare you?”
The UN Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change says absolutely that Climate Change is not an existential threat.
It also says that the information provided in the IPCC report isn’t “predictive” and shouldn’t be used as the basis for the formulation of policy.
that’s probably a good thing since much of that information is doctored which can easily be seen by comparing past revisions of said document.
Where can I sign, I have a Science degree too!
Well, there’s a link at the bottom, but you should only sign if you have expertise in climate science.
Mark Ruffalo and John Kerry can’t sign a document in support of the argument for climate change?
Political science and real science are two different animals, and the former is a jackass.
The left has, with considerable success, supplanted real science with political science, or, better, politically correct science.
Well, one good thing: the Chinese will stop sending their postdoc spies into academia to steal our research. The left will make that research useless.
There’s too much money on the table for this to be treated with the seriousness it deserves. If it is mentioned at all, it will be in lawsuits and flame wars against the authors.
Let’s see how much weight is carried by a petition signed by 1200 actual scientists, compared to all those opposing petitions signed by politicians, celebrities, adolescents, and TikTok influencers.
I some of us remember how they came up with the “97% agree” number that has been touted for 15 years
For those who don’t remember.
GIGO
The garbage out is always a sandwich board stating “The End Is Near”.
They’re slow. I started pointing it out 20 years ago. The difference is that climate hype has moved from a few nutball climate scientists to whole climate science institutions.
This is great and is spot on. If this whole rigmarole were about the climate it may have made a difference.
The Malthusians have never gone away, they’re still at it. Margret Sanger would be proud.
The coming Global Famine will begin next year and probably run for 5 years.
It was brought on by green energy policy. It could easily kill a half a billion people.
Crimes against humanity.
Hey! Predicting famine is their game. And they’ve always been wrong so far.
It’s not hard to predict famine when governments are essentially outlawing nitrogen-based fertilizers.
These wreckers and traitors are standing in the way of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money worldwide going to favored companies and organizations with a certain percentage being filtered back to the politicians who vote for the money to be spent.
They must be stopped.
Finally, some honest people coming forward.
The real agenda, in the alarmists’ own words….
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth, 1990
“No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
“The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production of human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. That is what ecologically minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.” — Louis Proyect, Columbia University, December 2008
“I gave a talk recently (on fallacies of global warming) and three members of the Canadian government, the environmental cabinet, came up afterwards and said, ‘We agree with you, but it’s not worth our jobs to say anything.’ So, what’s being created is a huge industry with billions of dollars of government money and people’s jobs dependent on it.” – Dr. Tim Ball, Coast-to-Coast, Feb 6, 2007
Not to mention the environmental and ecological damage caused by “green” energy.
Environmental, ecological, economic and social.
No hurricane to speak of yet though couple more months of the season
I looked at the list. Many are retired.
And their knowledge and experience cease to have any value once they retire. /s
I believe the point is that because they’re retired they’re effectively immune to retaliation against their livelihoods. They can literally afford to voice their position on the subject, as many (still working) are not.
Well, if they did this before they retired, they wouldn’t have retired.
Because anybody working that requires an income would be committing suicide to come out against the globalist agenda use your head man
Several years ago I watched a lecture by Professor Giaever on the the topic of global warming, and how it was pure bunk. I’m glad more and more are speaking out against the nonsense.
Of course (personally speaking), it helps to have lived through the ’70s, when “the experts” made equally scary pronouncements of catastrophe regarding the impending ice age. The predictions of doom were bunk then, just as they are bunk now.
In the end, it’s all nothing but a money (& power) grab.
“In the end, it’s all nothing but a money (& power) grab.”
Exactly right sir.
It’s a redistribution of power & money and look at the great harm done and disruption of our economy by these latest alarmist predictions.
When will we become so jaded that we won’t believe any of the self-proclaimed experts who are looking for grant money and power? When will we tell the sheeppels to turn off the not-smart phones and go get a real job?
Not only are the climate model “immature”; they are inaccurate. I maintain that the wrong math is used. They should be using the heat transfer equation developed by Einstein. Then they wouldn’t have to used a model; they could just calculate the change. I did this, and the answer was that man-made CO2 cooled the Earth (it’s cooler in the shade) by less than 1/1000th of a degree F. The effect lasted about 3 years.
98% of the signatories on this list are not climate scientists. We wouldn’t expect an “IT Consultant” (an actual signatory btw) to have the expertise necessary to diagnose cancer, why would we expect them to have the expertise needed to diagnose climate change? Unless these professors and professionals have expertise in climate science, they’re just regular civilians with no greater knowledge than the general population. Including them on a list such as this is just a disingenuous way to up the number count, not promote any kind of consensus on climate change denial.
Well, that applies to all the “settled science” on climate rhetoric, too, right? Pretty much none of them were actual climate scientists, and the ones who objected to the crazy were quickly black-balled and run out of the field.
Pretty much all I get from your comment is that “believe the experts” and “believe the science” are the old narrative; the new narrative is “believe ONLY our approved experts” and “believe ONLY our approved science.” Yeah, no. That’s never going to fly. Literally. Never.
There is no 98% that is fabricated it’s a hoax it’s fake if you look into it they totally contrived the 98% number
So you argue that the only opinions which matter are those of the experts in the field of climate science who have been wrong on every prediction for five decades?
Who also, just coincidentally, have much of their research funding tied to alarmist rhetoric?
Tell you what, since you want us to take these experts seriously you go ahead and provide a list of each of the top 500 climate scientists. Then provide their published papers and predictions then the equally public retraction they made when their predictions failed, their modeling was shown to be faulty and their methodology undermined.
Tossing out discredited opinion makers as reliable is another troubling aspect of the climate extremists. There is no accountability applied within that closed and self selecting group among themselves. No humility only hubris.
I don’t need a PhD to see that Joe Expert proclaimed X and X fails to materialize. I am perfectly capable of judging the relative worth of their predictions via the concrete outcomes. If you want to sell your ideas the best place to start is stop telling your audience they lack the ability to understand or evaluate the issues. The American people are by and large no longer trusting of of experts and the institutions these experts control for very simple reasons; the lies, distortions and flawed data have been exposed for alk to see over the past 50+ years.
I disagree. Physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, and other professionals have expertise that climate scientists don’t necessarily have. They are able, at least, to point out where climate scientists made errors when stepping outside their lane. Statisticians and epidemiologists are doing this now with regard to the COVID vaccine trials (where medical researchers got much of the statistics wrong) and in the study of the increase in all-cause mortality following the introduction of the vaccines (which provides a methodology for investigating vaccine safety not available to medical researchers prior to the use of the vaccines).
I have had so many conversations with intelligent people about this scam, but they talk as if it is carved in stone. You can’t change their minds. It is the Sun. I get blank stares when I tell them that Martian ice caps are also melting. There are so many factors.
Some have adopted climate alarmism as a religion. They base their outlook on faith not reason or facts. They won’t be swayed anymore than than those who believe the Earth is less than 5,000 years old.
For them it simply is and their views are so fragile that any acknowledgment they might have made an error would inevitably lead to the discovery of other errors. These folks are similar to a cloistered religious order on this issue; they keep apart from the world on this topic lest they be tempted.
The next time you hear someone use the phrase “settled science”, remind them that the only “settled” science are those theories that have been falsified. Even if considered factual, science is always subject to testing and falsification. A theory only need be falsified once for it to be proven false. It’s been more than 100 years since Einstein formulated his theory of general relativity, but it’s still being tested regularly. Einstein’s work isn’t considered “settled” science, not because it’s correct, but because it hasn’t been proven wrong.
Concerning the climate models used by the warmist scientists to promote their theories, consider that each research group creates its own climate model. This indicates that no group has any faith in the accuracy of any other model – effectively impugning the predictive capability of all of their models.
And they are merely theories. Generally, science starts with an observation (the earth is warming), followed by a hypothesis (introduction of CO2 to the atmosphere by humans is the cause of the warming), followed by theories, which are attempts to explain how the hypothesis acts (the mechanism) to produce that which has been observed. But this is not the end point. The end point is testing. Sometimes testing is impossible, so predictions are substituted. Can researchers derive predictions from the theory, and do they manifest in the real world? Every time this has been done, “climate change” predictions have failed. This is a clear sign that there’s something wrong with the theories (at least).
Anybody with any discernment or critical thinking knew that global warming was a hoax in the 90s it hasn’t been a very good Secret
The 70s. New Ice Age, anyone?
Adults know the whole scam is a farce to seize total control yet the power mongering crooks keep pushing it with all kinds of lies as usual.
This document is almost as sneaky as the Oregon Petition where 3100 “scientists” affirm that there is no “catastrophic” climate change. Note that the title is “There is no climate emergency”. If they really believe that man’s activity does no cause climate change, then the title should be “There is no man made climate change”. Must be disappointing to many skeptics out there. Note also that the first key point is “Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming” which again says that anthropogenic activitities cause global warming and natural causes also contribute. Another key point is “CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth” which is just a common sense statement. It also says that “CO2 is not a pollutant”. But nobody says CO2 is a pollutant except these 1100 people! Climate scientists don’t say that CO2 is a pollutant, but they only say that increases CO2 traps more heat in the atmosphere. Another key point “Warming is far slower than predicted” is not really correct. Some models predict slower warming while other models predict faster warming. The petition only refer to the faster models. The main man behind the petition, Professor Ivar Giaever, got a Nobel Prize in tunneling phenomenon and is not a specialist on climate. The main climate scientist in the 1100 is Professor Richard Lindzen. Yet, Lindzen is known to say openly that CO2 does warm the climate. His main complain is that the models are inadequate. Overall, this petition is attempting to put a shade on the increasing signs of climate change, and also attempting to pull resource away from climate change and put more resources into economic growth.
Such pleasing precision; the negating antithesis of big issue concern-smearing. “There is no Climate Emergency.” is way different from fake claims the crisis mongers will try to refute.
They’re pointing at The Iron Rule of Crisis Activism going on here: Make one, don’t waste one.
There’d be a lot less “Greenhouse Gasses” if the enviros would torch a few less straw men. Excuse me, persons. Whatever, they seem to lack the courage of their confusions.
Are you insane or what? This Climate BS HAS been going on since Al Gore lost his shot at the Presidency and we are all still ALIVE but he is living FAT OFF OF ALL THE SUCKERS LIKE YOU AND THE REST OF THE Climate GRIFTERS that are out there now!!
This Climate BS IS just that Bullsh*t!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
FakeBook labels this as false based on: “Natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850;” no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters, or making them more frequent.