Inevitable really, but the Daily Sceptic‘s recent article on the World Climate Declaration (WCD) has attracted a green-activist ‘fact check’, and on that flimsy basis has been labelled “false information” by Facebook. On August 18th we published an article reporting that scientists across the world had declared there was no climate emergency. We added that the assertions that humans cause most or all climate change and that the science behind this claim is ‘settled’ have been dealt a savage blow by the WCD. The lead signatory is the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, and he is followed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. No fewer than 235 professors have signed the Declaration. Our story on the WCD went viral on social media, and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. The article and the WCD have now been branded “incorrect” by the green activist blog Climate Feedback.
The blog’s author writes: “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.”
To claim that the climate has not undergone any natural change for almost 200 years is nonsense. Not a scrap of evidence can be submitted to back up this proposition, and it flies in the face of all climate science. The climate has changed on Earth since gas first made an appearance in the atmosphere. Climate Feedback’s claim is in fact a denial of climate change.
The second part of the charge sheet runs: “Scientific evidence also indicates that climate change is contributing to intensified or more frequent natural disasters such as heatwaves, drought and heavy rainfall.”
Again show us the evidence for this outlandish claim. Not a single scientific paper, not a scintilla of scientific proof, can attribute a one off bad (extreme) weather event to a change in long-term climate caused by humans burning fossil fuel. Any evidence supplied arises from climate models – evidence being a polite term for fanciful and wishful thinking.
A great deal of social media criticism of the WCD is reserved for the signatories. Their skills and interests range over many disciplines including pure science, such as chemistry and physics, along with useful related fields such as geology and paleoclimatology. The Climate Feedback review highlights the involvement of lead signatory Professor Antonino Zichichi, who is said to have links to the influential libertarian U.S. Heartland think tank. Furthermore, it is said he does not have a background in climate science. The attempted slur is interesting since Climate Feedback provides a link that does nothing more than present the professor’s impressive scientific and academic credentials. Zichichi “does not have a background in climate science”, it is said. In fact, Professor Zichichi is a physicist of immense international standing. He is credited with a number of scientific discoveries including nuclear anti-matter, served as President of the World Federation of Scientists and was awarded Italy’s highest honour, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.
But, obviously, when dealing with the settled science of climate change, Zichichi has spent a lifetime studying the wrong sort of physics.
Timothy Osborn, a climate professor at the University of East Anglia, claims that all natural warming stopped by the late 1800s, although, confusingly, he adds that natural factors, “would have caused a slight cooling over the last 70 years”. Such certitude of course doesn’t arise from the scientific evidence – there isn’t any to back up this absurd claim.
Osborn continues with his tale:
Scientists estimate the effects of various potential climate drivers [influences] by running model simulations, mathematical representations of the climate system. The effectiveness of climate models is evaluated by their ability to capture real world climate trends. Models used by the IPCC have been faithfully predicting climate since the 1970s, which gives researchers confidence in their performance.
In fact, as the above graph shows, “real world climate trends” haven’t got a great track record when it comes to accurately forecasting future temperatures. The thick green line above shows the satellite record, the other lines the predications of climate models. From the turn of the century, when green activists went to war on fossil fuel, the predictions of thermogeddon have become increasingly detached from reality.
Finally, the ‘fact check’ disputes the statement in the WCD that there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying weather events. This is said to be at odds with the most recent IPCC report, which states in its “Summary for Policymakers” that “human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe”. As the Daily Sceptic has noted, these ‘attribution’ claims are mostly the product of climate models, slammed by the WCD as “not remotely plausible as global policy tools”. Meanwhile, the IPCC summary for policymakers has recently been criticised as “government-dictated findings”. Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen of Princeton and MIT respectively, laid that charge, noting that an IPCC rule states that all summaries must be approved by governments. “Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence,” they said.
Academics around the world are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry at the politicisation of science in the interest of promoting the command-and-control Net Zero agenda. The science is not settled – far from it. The WCD is a powerful fightback and is attracting worldwide interest and debate. This latest so-called fact check from Climate Feedback is just a recitation of a political narrative.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor
Stop Press: Watch Chris talk to TalkTV’s Kevin O’Sullivan about the World Climate Declaration.
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.
Never ever let the facts get in the way of a good story.
And, as for Facebook’s censorship – why one earth would I look on facebook (which I dont as I am not a subscriber) for facts?
The one card I would love to see played and, I think is very strong, is climate has changed in the past and why cannot alarmist so called scientists tell us why it has changed? Their usual response has been to change the data so that climate change didn’t happen.
A few examples were it clearly did, Greenland is called Greenland for a reason. People had ice fairs on the Thames etc etc. Tree stumps are discovered under glaciers. The Romans made wine in Britain. Even reading a 1950s book by a swiss historian, Monsieur Bonjour, alpine passes were disgorging archaeoligocal finds due to melting.
“Professor Antonino Zichichi, who is said to have links to the influential libertarian U.S. Heartland think tank”
Libertarian = Literally Hitler
A fine rebuttal against these climate fascists.
Ask ’em,
“What’s the correct global temperature?”
Before January 2020 I was to all
intents and purposes a ‘Normie’.
I was convinced of the impartiality of the BBC, a fan of the ‘debate’ on Question Time. A believer that although occasionally hysterical in their proclamations, greenies were essentially good. That content on social media was organically shared and that its algorithms were benign.
Since then I have witnessed a government scaring a gullible and innumerate public into accepting lockdowns using wanton propaganda. Ferguson’s models bore no resemblance to the infection and mortality data onboard the Diamond Princess. This deterred neither Johnson, SAGE et al from introducing lockdown nor the BBC, Social
media and legacy media from marshaling public compliance. That nobody in media asked questions initially raised my heckles and that nobody continued to ask questions for months afterwards made me realise that the consequences of lockdown that we are witnessing now was their desired outcome.
I am now firmly of the belief that the BBC is under the control of MI5 and is a deep state mouthpiece, that all social media were launched by the CIA initially for data capture and are are now used to disseminate tailored propaganda.
I believe that democracy is a mere illusion and that anybody that we choose to elect irrespective of political stripe will continue with the deep state project of financial immiseration.
Net Zero is just another strand of this project, restrict supply of energy and watch prices go through the roof. Justify the measures using modeling created by experts, double
down on heretics who raise concerns about said modeling.
Once the pound in our pockets is eroded to nothingness with untrammeled inflation and our astronomical energy bills and loan repayments become unpayable then we can expect the Bank of England to come to our rescue.
In exchange for our personal liberties, we will be offered a new Central Bank Digital Currency, that will track our every purchase.
Like a digital panopticon.
You need to move savings out of sterling.
I have a client who’s been down the rabbit hole for a long time a true free thinker. A few what I thought were conspiracies were mentioned in conversation but mostly global warming. I thought they were a bit eccentric but enjoyed the conversation and different perspective. When covid came along everything they had been saying fell into place for me. Unfortunately we are being led down the path towards slavery. Two choices it’s either the Great Awakening or the Great Reset, let’s hope it’s the former. I think like me and you Uncle Monty a few more have been disturbed from their slumber let us hope it’s enough.
To be fair, there was once a sort of proper debate on Question Time. Not long before the UK Independence referendum, from an episode in Yorkshire, they actually had a genuine representation of Eurosceptics in the audience, apparently.
Some positive climate news. Only available on the Way Back Machine, quelle surprise…
https://web.archive.org/web/20220826020228/http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Not completely off topic, but I have been reading about the Hunga Tonga eruption in January this year and the amount of water vapour it pushed into the upper atmosphere. I saw it suggested that this could cause an incredibly cold winter for the northern hemisphere. Volcanoes have historically affected weather – Mt St Helens blowing up caused a very grey wet summer in fairly recent times, but so called climate experts seem not to mention volcanic effects. Hunga Tonga could truly be the fourth horseman of the apocalypse.
So the 96% of CO2 in the atmosphere created by nature does not contribute to “climate change” but the 4% attributed to human activity does. Do we make evil CO2?
It’s just more co2 co2, it just makes everything hot, think Jalapeno peppers and yr not even close.
Removing the ad-homs, the “rebuttal” makes a number of points.
Firstly, it quotes the US Fourth National Climate Assessment which contains the graph shown – basically how much radiative forcing, or warming, is caused by CO2 (the largest so-called greenhouse gas). So how do we know how much CO2 “forces” temperature?
Wikipedia contains little more than a reference to a paper from 1995, which uses “a consistent set of models and assumptions”. Further reading suggests that the origin for the CO2 “forcing” concept was 1979’s Charney Report – after that it was Al Gore and the IPCC that took up the “forcing” ball and ran with it.
The Charney Report’s estimate of 3C of warming was based on “our review of a series of calculations with three-dimensional models of the global atmospheric circulation”. The Charney Report further refers to Ramanathan et al 1979, an interesting paper which basically assumes that CO2 and H2O have to produce a “so-called greenhouse effect” to compensate for the fact that the Sun is thought to have increased in luminosity by 25% over time, with “no corresponding change in the Earth’s global mean temperature”.
Ramanathan further relies on Hart 1978 to provide “a first estimate of atmospheric CO2 variability over time”. And they really mean “time” – going back to the inception of the Earth about 4 billion years ago!
All of which is to say – present-day CO2 forcing is derived from work originally done in the late ’70s as an attempt to explain why the Earth is not hotter than it is due to the increased heating effect from the Sun – basically, that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere then that “trapped the heat”.
What has that got to do with anything? Well, since that early work, the extent of CO2 “forcing” has been in the hands of those who are incentivised to maintain the thrust of Charney – in short, that CO2 does indeed force the atmosphere, and that man’s activities of emitting CO2 are causing the Earth to heat up.
The alternate viewpoint – that the Earth changes in temperature primarily due to external factors, and CO2 is either a red herring, or increases DUE to temperature rises (for which there is plenty of evidence), rather than causing them – is dismissed by quoting Timothy Osborn, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia (of Climategate fame). Following the links, Osborn relies on his statement “The warming from the late 1800s to the present is all due to human causes” on a 2007 paper co-authored by, you guessed it, Timothy Osborn! Surprise, surprise, this is based on a “climate simulation model”.
The rest of the rebuttals rely on political-adjacent sources like the IPCC.
It seems bizarre to counter an article which criticises policy for being politicised and derived from models by using politicised models as evidence.
A final thought – as the excellent Euan Mearns points out – if you live in the North East of Scotland, a 1-2 degree warming will be much welcomed – a change in the other direction and you’ll be freezing to death in short order!
Surely it’s plain to any thinking individual that the hoops one has to jump through to arrive at the idea that a “climate emergency” is going on – that CO2 forces the climate to change, that the CO2 is all under man’s control, and that the resultant small increase in temperature will itself lead to some sort of disaster rather than improving the life chances of those in cold regions (ten times more people die of cold rather than heat) – are simply so far-fetched as to be preposterous.
[…] all the available scientific evidence implicates human greenhouse gas emissions as the primary culprit.
This could be reworded as Climate alarmists are convinced that they’re right. Well, who da thunk.
Chris Morrison, whoever he is, doing a fine job. Extremely grateful for his work challenging the man made co2 fallacy.
“The reason that the likes of Insulate Britain are allowed to break the law is because their cause is seen as just” (On Dan Woton’s GB News show just now from that man who wasn’t allowed to join the C of E clergy because he said there wasn’t a major problem with racism).
But the cause of anti-lockdown and anti “vaccine” mandate protesters through2020 and 2021 campaigning against measures amounting to the worst human rights abuses in UK history wasn’t just (and in fact so unjust that the police were ordered to duff up women protesters) ? And this is a government of a party calling itself the “Conservative” party? What an absolute shambles.
Seen too many Hollywood movies, presumably. Breaking the law is by definition unjust. The proper democractic way to deal with laws one believes to be getting in the way for no good reason would be to change them and not to break them.
‘ “climate derangement syndrome” throughout the West is a major boon for the economies of India, Russia and China, all of which are prospering and building about one coal-fired power plant per month’ – Ethan Huff, Natural News
“In climate science, the future is 100% certain, but the past has to be constantly rewritten” – Tony Heller
“By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox” – Galileo Galilei
So….models are the new spells of enchantment. You can do anything on a computer with a lot of different data. Modelling got us into the planned mess of Covid for instance. Modelling is used for just about everything and anything to be able to back up an agenda. It is the agenda that needs looking at most. In the case of the ‘climate agenda’ it is spankingly clear that the agenda is to force us humans to get out of our cars, get into smart cities and be irradiated by 5G, stop traditional farming, feed us less, medicate us…I wonder what sort of human being would flourish in such situations? Very few if any is the obvious answer with many, many deaths following. The agenda is therefore to reduce the global population as it’s always been. To kill us off. The likes of Greta Thunberg – who incidentally is not a scientist – and George Monbiot – again, not a scientist – are being swayed by the modelling. They have been enchanted and are caught in the spell. They are not thinking rationally. And it is because of them, that so many others follow. It is just one big sticky spider’s web, a trap.
There is the same influence from incompetent scientists on climate as there was for Covid. The same reliance on models that are always proven to be wrong and the same influence by organisations making profit from the crazy aim for net zero as was from big pharma on Covid. So many of the scientists giving distorted and false data on climate wouldn’t have a job if they couldn’t make people wrongly believe there is a climate emergency caused by human activity, which there isn’t. Real scientists who have studied cilmate accurately and explain what is going on are not heard and often cancelled because their message doesn’t fit with those making money from the aims for nett zero which are contributing to the crippling of our economy.
COVID was basically the people who usually do climate emergency temporarily applying their methods to virus emergency .