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.”
Since emerging from the ‘Little Ice Age’ in around 1850, the world has warmed significantly less than predicted by the IPCC on the basis of modelled human influences. “The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change,” the WCD notes.
The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
The Declaration notes that the Earth’s climate has varied for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm periods. “It is no surprise that we are experiencing a period of warming,” it continues. Climate models have many shortcomings, it says, “and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effects. “CO2 is not a pollutant,” it says. “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 yield of crops worldwide.”
In addition, the scientists declare that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such-like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. “There is no climate emergency,” the Declaration goes on. “We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050,” it says, adding that 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,” it concludes.
The WCD is the latest sign that the ‘settled’ fantasy surrounding climate change science is rapidly breaking down. Last year, Steven Koonin, an Under-Secretary of Science in the Obama Administration, published a book titled Unsettled in which he noted that, “The science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades, much less what our actions will be.” He also noted that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate change is settled demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, “retarding its progress in these important matters”. In 2020, the long-time green activist Michael Shellenberger wrote a book called Apocalypse Never in which he said he believed the conversation about climate change and the environment had in the last few years “spiralled out of control”. Much of what people are told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, he wrote.
Of course, green extremists in academia, politics and journalism will continue to argue for the command-and-control they crave through a Net Zero policy. In the end, their warped view of the scientific process will fade, leaving a trail of ludicrous Armageddon forecasts, and yet more failed experiments in hard-left economic and societal control.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Postscript: When we posted this article on the Daily Sceptic Facebook page, it was labelled “False Information”, a conclusion reached after it was “checked by independent fact-checkers”. If you then click on “See Why”, you’re taken to this page on a website called Climate Feedback. It takes issue with this sentence in the Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming started by Professor Antonino Zichichi: “Natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850.” This is “incorrect” for the following reason: “Natural (non-human) drivers of climate change have been mostly stable since the onset of modern warming and all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit. Scientific evidence also indicates that climate change is contributing to intensified or more frequent natural disasters such as heatwaves, drought and heavy rainfall.”
To claim “all the available scientific evidence” supports the view that human activity is the “primary culprit” when it comes to climate change is a bit misleading, surely? In fact, Professor Zichichi refers to at least some scientific evidence that the anthropogenic responsibility for the climate change observed during the last century has been exaggerated on page 1 of his petition. Indeed, Climate Feedback’s labelling of the central claims made in the World Climate Declaration as “incorrect” is a step up from its previous analysis of the Declaration, which concluded that the scientific credibility of the Declaration was “very low”.
Chris Morrison responded to some of the criticisms to the above piece here and specifically to the Climate Feedback fact check here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You provide answer based upon close scurtiny of past events. Given that our whole understanding and epistomelogy is falling apart and that this is the meaning of our times and that Apocalypse means the lifting of the veil. There will be deeper discreditings than this one. But what is all of this tryng to tell you? It is trying to guide you to the realm of the spirit where no one can help or guide to to get there. Just listen to the vibe of our time and the feeling in the air and try to find resonance.
The only way to see the past or present or future is through clairyoyance. And that is a difficult and rocky path for all those who are called to it. Doesn’t matter that is the beauty of our species. Our humanity shines stronger than ever in this time in my view. In a time of unveiling I think that clairvoyance will be shared with everyojne.
That sounds esoteric, but it’s true that there is a lot that we don’t know.
Do you not see the permanent damage that you are doing the mythos of your country. You really have and you really are. I am not a particularly nationalistic person but people like you make me feel sick. Perhaps you desire a call to arms. I would advise against it.
The future can never resemble a model because a model is essentially a projection of a trend. Each moment in the future is blest with its own magic. Nobody knows it. Anyone who tells you that they do is heading for a fall. I have learned that. There are forces which give us pictures or projections but if you listen closely they tell you to listen to more important things. I am sure that I don’t need to mention them. All I can say is have a realistic estmation of your own abilities.
could do is make the meeting hall where you choose to get together, to be as beautiful and resonant as possible. Then when you have them beguiled you can charm them with your words. It doesn’t matter. No gentleman can support such action.
Have you been drinking all night and not been to bed?
This statement annoys me. It suggests that what I think would be good for me is equivalent to what someone else thinks is good for me.
During COVID – and constantly. in public life – there are people who think they have the authority and right to make decisions for everyone. Those people should have more humility and accept they don’t know what is best for everyone. But they don’t.
I have every right to decide what is best for me – be it buy a petrol car or an electric one, wear a mask or not, go out into the street or stay at home – and to reject someone else’s opinion isn’t per se a lack of humility.
And that seems to me the essential difference between the two camps – it’s not a simple difference of opinion about what the “right” thing to do is, but a difference of opinion about the proper limits on the ability of the collective to impose their will on the individual. We need a different country.
The author seems to assume that “something had to be done” and the poor old government had to make a choice, probably made a mistake but it was a genuine one. There’s a base assumption that the state has every right to make such decisions, even if they turn out to be wrong, as long as they are entered into honestly.
Not just the right but the obligation. It’s reached a point where to do nothing just isn’t an option. Deciding to stay out the way and let people decide things for themselves is nowadays is gross negligence and a dereliction of duty by the state. Something must be done. Anything. And like you say even if it’s a catastrophe, as.long as it was in good faith, all good.
Indeed, obligation, good point.
I don’t want to be in the same country as people who believe that. I don’t feel I have much common ground with the majority of people I know personally.
I had lunch with my ex last week.
It was clear that she’d forgotten that I’ve never been jabbed, have never worn a mask, have never taken any notice of the moronic rules/guidelines.
Which strongly suggests that I’m the only person she knows who has behaved in that way.
Other than people I’ve met through sceptic forums, I only know five people in real life who did not take the “covid vaccine” and two of those are me and my Mrs.
I know only two, my niece and her husband. Depressing.
Bloody hell I thought I had it bad.
Very sadly I have to agree with you tof:
“I don’t feel I have much common ground with the majority of people I know personally.”
What is missing is one statement of fact, namely that governments everywhere acted in unison. This has nothing to do with stupid modellers and confused politicians because in truth they had all been given their scripts.
And if it was all headless Chickens panicking all over the place, and some point the panic driven cock-ups would go in our favour. But as we say, every crisis was an excuse to suck individual liberties and reward to the state.
Every penny paid in tax is a decision taken out of your hands.
Often those decisions are made by people who actively hate you.
“Often those decisions are made by people who actively hate you.”
That feeling is becoming mutual…
“That feeling is
becomingmutual…”Apologies tof.
And now they want Council taxpayers to pay for their heating because they’re mostly working from home!
Governments though are given responsibility to supposedly look after what is best for all individuals. ——-If they think it is best to go to war then they will do that. If they think it is best to double your electricity bill based on assumptions about the climate they will do that. If they decide everyone should wear a mask then they will do that. ——Governments cannot be expected to make decisions based on what individuals think or believe otherwise they would never do anything because we all have different world views. Our only hope is that governments do the right thing based on what is best overall and they do that honestly taking all information into account. ———–Alas governments today are less trusted than ever before and many are realising that they have agenda’s other than what is best for their own citizens and now pander to unaccountable Supra National Institutions (UN, WEF, WHO etc) rather than to the people who vote for them
“…the problem was that politicians were confronted with scientists who in reality didn’t have a clue what to do, were floundering around, giving conflicting advice, and generally causing mayhem. As usual, real events didn’t pan out according to the plans and predictions.
To be fair, what else would one have expected? Who would or could have known what to do?”
Seriously? Words fail me.
“Yet “it was both politicians and scientists making mistakes”…”
God give me strength.
Mistakes?
Lockstep, dictated from somewhere (WHO or beyond). Scientists and politicians knew exactly what to do, and did it – ditch long-standing plans which amounted to doing very little (which is what had always been done and would have been the correct thing to do) and shut down the world, and sell everyone an untested “vaccine”. Yeah, floundering.
“Who would or could have known what to do?”
The people who had drawn up the established response.
Which was replaced by opposite policies on the basis of no evidence or reasoning process whatsoever.
Sweden, the people who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration.
All just a cockup.
Does the author not read the other articles on this website. Plenty of evidence of collusion just like with Swine Flu in 2009.
It was a full 180 on the flick of a dime, but yeah, just cock-up FFS. Why are they all rewarded for failure is a reasonable question.
There is a central issue which everyone needs to address, which can vaguely be described as the understanding of the paramaters of consciousness. I don’t want to go into it given the gravity of our geopolitical situation I just want to say it doesn’t matter as lomg as you’re honest. We might get chastised or deleted but we probably won’t get a 2000 lb bomb dropped on our head. There were some severely damaged chidren after thhose weeks of Israeli bombardment and some had made tentative recoveries only to hear the bombardment again. Take it from me, this event is probably the most important event in 4000 years in terms of the feelings that are evoked. I never take refuge in prejudice but all of my friends, all very well-educated people, have said that they will feel nothing but loathing for Jews in the future. I mean total peacenik types I would’ve never imagined they aould talk that way.
If you just spend a few months studying the philosophy of science you will see all of these issues brought out into the daylight. In Norway for example there is a basic philsophy course which you have to take in order to underpin any degree, which includes philosophy of science. I think that this is a wise idea. On the other side philosophers care little for science which leads to its own occlusion.There is no way to point people in the right direction we just owe it to make the attempt.
Modelling appears to be the modern equivalent of scapulimancy.
The Naskapi Tribe used to heat up the bones of a dead animal on the fire until the first crack developed. That crack would be used to indicate the direction in which the next hunting party should set off.
And, of course, both modelling and scapulimancy suffer from the same weaknesses, susceptibility to interpretation and manipulation.
That being said, burning some old bones is a great deal cheaper than Professor Pantsdown’s stipend so I recommend that the government sacks all its modellers and gives the Tribal Chief of all the Naskapi, Chief Theresa Chemaganish, located, I believe, in Kawawachikamach, a call….
Modelling can surely be useful but the key thing is to keep checking whether what the model predicted actually then comes to pass, and continually refine it if it proves inaccurate. That’s clearly not always how it is used…
Of course models are useful, I agree, but, as the man said, they are all wrong.
I think we all know that disreputable chancer modellers, of which there are not a few, pretty much make it up (manipulate to get the desired ‘right’ answer) as they go along…..to fit the narrative given by the financier, very much like pollsters…..
Far cheaper to burn some bones and get the same answer anyway.
Presumably you’ll get him on the dog and bone.
Home sweet home….
Coup detat’s true identity revealed
Much of ‘science’ is 100% junk. Much of ‘the science’ terrain is in dispute. Newtonian gravity vs shadow gravity, Einstein’s abstract maths and STR which are so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look solid, bang religion, climate fascism, the flu fascism, the shrew to you theology, endless ages – most of these are metaphysical projects and much of it evil.
Speaking of history I will say this – I get more of a ‘renaissance’ imbibing Aquinas, Bonaventure, Assisi and Buridan – than I do from the ‘enlightenment’ where abstractions replace reality, proofs eschewed for hand-waving, all the way down to Einstein.
As for models – laughable. These idiots can’t model what happened yesterday and as Mann et al and Climategate proved – most of them are bullshit. As Rona elaborated, worse than bullshit, more like horseshit. Data fraud and make up propaganda is now science. Show me the flying virus from the air, with the dna of the ‘disease’. If you can’t show it, shut up.
As someone who has built complex data models I know that ‘my peers’ don’t have a fracking clue and anything I build will be approved. So much for consensus.
And as for “Germ Theory”……… Utter nonsense
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/first-do-harm-a-sorry-tale-in-the-daily-mail/
Daily Mail obviously under paid instruction to go after a doctor who happens to be operating in the best interests of her patients. No surprises.
What’s the TLDR version?
BTW Engineering modelling works, if you don’t believe so then don’t fly or drive anywhere. QED is the most accurate physics model according to Feynman.
Modelling outside the hard sciences however is usually performed by people not up to hard science.
https://x.com/kimdotcom/status/1730230555000574003
From Dr Mike Yeadon’s Telegram.
A Whistleblower has put out the fact that the Pfizer “vaccines” were deliberately tainted.
An epidemiologist has stated that “the vaccines are the pathogen.”
Indeed. So much for “scientists” “floundering”.
I’m afraid much of this article seems like re-heated cockup theory to me.
The alternative to serial cock-ups all in the same direction all over the world at roughly the same time by fundamentally well-meaning people has implications so horrific that people like Guy just dare not consider it
I think there’s a good deal of denial going on, and wishful thinking. I don’t seem to be capable of this – the future looks pretty bleak to me.
I agree.
I’d say history begins the moment something is past.
From that point onwards, it is a matter of opinion, not fact.
Prophecy, the history of the duture, scripturally, is different. The prophet is either 100% accurate or is not. In the Old Testament, the rules for false prophets were severe.
Modelling is NOT science. ———Does anyone think a pocket calculator is mathematics? ———The calculator is a tool that helps you do calculations quicker than you would do them yourself. It does not provide the answer to things whose variables and parameters you don’t know. Similarly with a climate model if you do not understand the effects of clouds, or water vapour, or the correct value for Climate Sensitivity to greenhouse gasses and you simply enter a guess or an assumption into your model the answer you get will not be worth anything. That is shown to be true by the fact that climate models have all been way off the mark till now and they cannot even hindcast climate that we know has occurred. I recall a Lead Author at the IPCC saying that “There has to be something fundamentally wrong with our models as a 20 year pause in warming does not appear in any of them”. ———-He still thinks there is global warming and believes that to be true, but believing things are true is religion, not science.—-Modelling is not science
Is the truth what we think it is, or the present activity of thinking ? It seems to be thought that creates the subjective reality of time, within whose contextuality we think we live. Modelling seems to be what we do all the time…