A Free-Market Energy Blog

World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency” (Brussels presser tomorrow)

By Eduard Harinck -- November 19, 2019

[Editor note: The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), dedicated to “challenging governments and organisations to substantiate the conclusions in their publications on climate change and climate policies,” has sponsored the World Climate Declaration (below). This declaration will be formally disseminated on November 20th in Brussels.]

A group of more than 750 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message to the United Nations and the European Commission: 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.

The Declaration follows:

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 at less than half the rate predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It 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 EU 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.

EU 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 adapt. The aim of European policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times.

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.

Press Release: “There is no climate emergency, say 700 experts

A new, high-level global network of more than 700 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.

The group has recently sent the Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations. This action has received overwhelming response from all over the world.

Now the Group has sent the Declaration with a registered letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, the outgoing President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, the incoming President and Vice-President Frans Timmermans, responsible for the Europe’s Climate Policy.

The group’s letter warns European leaders that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”.

The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should, “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they … exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”.

On November 20 there will be a press meeting in the building of the European Parliament in Brussels at 15:00, starting with three short opening addresses:

  • Professor Guus Berkhout, initiator of the ECD, highlights the main ECD points and he will
  • announce next steps
  • Professor Benoît Rittaud, ECD ambassador, highlights the citizens’ reactions on France’s
  • climate policy
  • Dr. Detlef Ahlborn, expert Energiewende, summarizes the far going effects of climate policy
  • on Germany’s economy

After the opening addresses the Declaration with the list of experts will be presented to members of the European Commission and members of the European Parliament.

There will be ample time for press and invitees to ask questions. At around 17:00 we will continue the discussion in an informal setting.

If you wish to attend the press meeting in Brussels, please send a message to guus.berkhout@clintelgroup.org Detailed address in Brussels: European Parliament, Spinelli entrance at Rue Wiertz, conference room ASP 1H1


  1. Victor T. Pearson  

    This is reality check for climate science. It is not settled. There are many other hypothesises and historical data cannot be explained. The models have been wrong on many occasions but no IPCC funded scientists have admitted it.
    There is no climate crisis but a crisis in the science.


  2. Anthony Brinker  

    Climate science is complex and long cycle. Reducing any explanation for warming to the levels of CO2, a trace gas, is convenient but foolish and poor science. We all wish to live in a cleaner and greener world but we should move forward based on the facts of good science and not allow ourselves to be distracted by any easy ‘explanations’.
    This declaration also reminds us that there are costs that come with our plans to de-carbon. What it could also note is that these costs will be borne by those who choose to de-carbon, namely the west, but also by the very poor and developing. It is the very poor who have most benefitted from the falling real cost of energy over the past 200 years. If we fail to see this cost then we are implicitly sentencing the poor to a lower living standard than would have been the case. Meanwhile certain nation states will not follow the guidelines (even if they were valid) thereby gaining a cost of energy advantage risking global political instability.
    If I may can I ask that the 700 signatories make their names and credentials available.


  3. Einar Sletten  

    Excellent – hope people will wake up!


  4. Karl Airey  

    I grateful for this. I’m also curious to see the list if signatories. Where is it?


  5. Energy & Environmental Newsletter: November 25, 2019 - Master Resource  

    […] Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda Opening Up the Climate Policy Envelope World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency” We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion 10 questions to ask your […]


  6. Weekly Abstract of Power and Local weather Data No. 387 – Next Gadget  

    […] World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency” (Brussels presser tomorrow) […]


  7. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – November 25th 2019 | PA Pundits - International  

    […] Climate alarmists use junk science to promote their agenda Opening Up the Climate Policy Envelope World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency” We Must Confront ‘Climate Change’ with Reason Rather Than Emotion 10 questions to ask your […]


  8. The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, November 25th, 2019  

    […] World Climate Declaration: “There is no climate emergency” […]


  9. Federico  

    Well there will always be detractors of the IPCC, it’s ok, nothing new in science culture, however I regard you that the front page is dedicated to the most complete, well performed and interesting investigations (that means there is data one can actually see, IPCC reports) however I wonder have these 750 “scientists” performed any? Or do they see them selves as an editorial board?

    Moreover their critics, issued above, have long been explained in several webpages dedicated to fight fake news in the climate change area. I would like to see a list of these scientists economic sponsors, it would likely be interesting.


Leave a Reply