“… 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.”
There are a lot of very smart people in the world. And most do not work at colleges and universities and pressure groups. They are curious free agents, free to think and even be politically incorrect.
When the history of climate alarmism is written decades from now, there will be recognition about how a very able undercurrent of thought kept check on an intellectual/political/media elite declaring a dire emergency from the human influence on climate. Sites such as WUWT–“the world’s leading climate website”–will be acknowledged. So will the sober commentary of Judith Curry at Climate Etc.
And so more than a thousand intellectual, critical thinkers have signed a manifesto challenging the current orthodoxy that remains in political power. Chris Morrison reported in The Daily Skeptic last week:
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.
The World Climate Declaration (Global Climate Intelligence Group) follows:
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.
OUR ADVICE TO THE EUROPEAN LEADERS IS THAT SCIENCE SHOULD STRIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM, WHILE POLITICS SHOULD FOCUS ON MINIMIZING POTENTIAL CLIMATE DAMAGE BY PRIORITIZING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES BASED ON PROVEN AND AFFORDABLE TECHNOLOGIES.
COP27 is several months ahead. The world is recommitting itself to fossil fuels, while only government largesse keeps the wind/solar/battery gravy train going. Global Climate Intelligence Group’s World Climate Declaration stands as a beacon light to a wholly different approach of free-market adaptation, not government mitigation.
Can a list be found??
Editor: Yes, at the bottom here https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WCD-version-100122.pdf
Skepticism and credulity correlate most strongly in echo chambers and choirs.
I do not understand your comment. Enron was a climate hawk that has nothing to do with the post.
If climate change isn’t real, the photos of the Arctic Ocean no longer covered by summer ice must not be real either. The “Then” and “Now” photos of shrinking glaciers in Al Gore’s movie? Probably not real either.
The actual issue worth discussing is this. How well is the Earth’s natural cooling system working with atmospheric carbon dioxide up by 50% since Watt invented a workable steam engine? Infrared photons do get captured by CO2 molecules if they’re vibrating at the right frequencies. The photons that escape into space cool the Earth by taking away heat. The photons that don’t escape into space don’t result in cooling because they don’t take away heat. And total atmospheric CO2 is up by more than 730 billion metric tonnes, today, vs the 1760s. So the atmosphere’s ability to trap escaping photons has risen considerably. Why should we believe that messing with the Earth’s natural cooling system is perfectly safe?
Good question. What we know and don’t know about current and future climate calls for resiliency to weather/climate extremes. That is a rational climate policy of ‘no regrets.
Trying to invert the global energy system (a disaster so far) is the “messing with the Earth” that concerns many. And the global government and authoritarianism and ‘expert failure’ that goes with it.
Mitigation policy today will not have any effects out decades–that is the climate math. Adaptation time ….