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.
But will anyone in government in a position to turn around the super-tanker pay any attention?
Unfortunately you’re right that the green/net zero agenda is a super-tanker, and one that’s been gathering speed for at least 2 decades. Therefore it will take years if not decades to slow it down and eventually turn it around, so we shouldn’t expect this latest declaration to have any immediate noticeable effect. However it isn’t without value if it is one of many such declarations, articles, blog posts etc. that may eventually have a cumulative effect.
If they don’t then we are heading towards catastrophic consequences on the scale of The Great Leap Forward. That initiative led to some 30m deaths in China.I’m afraid the net zero/climate emergency rhetoric is on a similar scale. Already government
departments/civil service (the latter really runs this country) around the world are scheming and colluding with the globalists to kick farmers – of long experience off their land so as to ‘rewild’ or cover with solar panels (made without regard for the environment). This is happening in the U.K., the US, Canada, Holland They – the likes of Gates – are investing in the development of
lab grown meat to replace ruminant herds that are blamed for ‘greenhouse gas emissions’. The madness is off the scale.
For those who downvoted this, can you please explain your logic? No emotion, or appeals to authority, or insults. Just an explanation.
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome” – Charles MacKay
“We live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.” – R. Feynman
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.” – Feynman
And this is where we are:
“We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements . . . profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.” – Sagan
A typical dictionary definition: “Emergency – a serious occurrence that happens unexpectedly and demands immediate action”. In the real world, there is nothing unexpected about climate change – what would be odd is a long term period of stability, such as my first 60 years.
It’s good to see some serious academic getting a grip of the political debate, though, before over reactive measures are implemented.
Incidentally, I hope Greta is growing up well!
Over reactive measures have already been implemented. Over 50% of our homes will be too expensive to heat this winter.Deliberately engineered by our Net Zero zombie Government.
Now that Carrie Antoinette has been booted out of 10 Downing Street, The interest in ‘Zero’anything will fade into distant memory – hopefully
Emergency was added recently in order to grab the attention of tv watchers. Covid propaganda worked so well, they’ve moved on to the climate ‘emergency’ to get the masses on board.
They never speak of the Medieval Warming Period, or the years – 1315-17 – of failed crops due to cold weather and heavy rainfalls that led to mass starvation across Britain and the rest of Europe resulting in the deaths of up to 10% of populations.
with so many falling over themselves now to prove their net zero dedication it is all horribly reminiscent of the Great Leap Forward which resulted in 30m Chinese deaths except this is on a global scale.
I doubt that this will make the headlines of the BBC news tonight, but well done to those who are willing to stand up for real science and truth. If the ‘overwhelming majority’ think Climate Emergency is real, bring forward your evidence and discuss it openly.
No ‘settled science’ ever required laws to stop you discussing the possibility that it wasn’t true.
It won’t be on the BBC because like so much of the media it is bought and paid for by the perpetrators of the lie.
Clintel has been around since 2019. The BBC has known of it since then but to the best of my knowledge has never mentioned it.
As with the GBD, all the signatories deserve our support and respect. The battle against this insane eco, net zero lunacy has properly commenced.
As with the C1984 Scamdemic we must try to do what we can to promote common sense and the application of genuine science and research.
Tip o’ the hat and much respect to the decency and bravery shown by all those who have signed.
God bless.
Just something I notice, not trying to push an agenda, but I notice that by far the majority of the names appear to be men’s.
Sexist
I don’t have to hand (and wouldn’t really know where to find it) the normal proportion of women working in this field, but it feels likely to me that it is considerably higher than the proportion in this declaration.
It seems to me that the Climate Emergency is taking on an ever more violent character: it is getting ever closer to a real war waged against regular folk’s lives. It’s at times like these that the typically masculine characteristics come to the fore, and the feminine characteristics take a back seat – this list might be the vanguard.
I don’t like to talk up war – it’s just an observation.
It’s about time scientists spoke up en masse about this horrific pseudoscience.
The damage it has done to Western society is incalculable.
Ever since the Club of Rome pinpointed the Eco agenda as the vehicle for controlling the masses in the 1970s things have steadily gone from reasonable concerns about pollutants in the oceans to self flagellating anti human death cult.
It strikes close to home with millennial relatives of mine so convinced of the impending climate apocalypse that they have become completely alienated from living a full life invested in theirs snd their children’s (if they can be bothered to have them) lives.
Since much of this claptrap has been pushed through the Appeal to authority argumentation, one hopes that a slew of authorities countering it will give the hysterics and terminally depressives a pause to rethink this heap of lies.
But then, the same forces that controlled the media narrative on Covid, then Ukraine, control the narrative on climate, so I don’t have high hopes.
Very good news. A GBD of climate change. Perhaps it will garner some acceptance and respect in a couple of years as the GBD is beginning to. Thanks for the post.
By the way, the byline is Toby Young but at the bottom it says “Chris Morrison is the DS Environmental Editor”; who exactly is the author of this piece?
PS. Is there a non-pdf version of the declaration?
Not quite. It has much less substance, it’s basically just a single page of text and one with a pretty picture.
Oh.
Thx, I couldn’t look at it because my tablet seems to have lost its pdf reader.
Yes – clearly inspired by the GBD; I wonder if the signatories are also sceptics of lockdown policies?.
This will be derided and smeared at first; I don’t know if they are looking for laypeople to sign – possibly not, because it will rely on scientific credibility for clout.
Maybe in the medium term the world at large will decide that these scientists are right. They have a lot of convincing to do in the meantime.
I welcome this Declaration – hope it gets widely shared on social media because the other sort of media won’t touch it, unless they unearth a few Mickey Mouse signatures as happened with the GBD.
I had a short look at the signature list. One of the signatories was an urologist who claimed to be a climate realist. That should count as layperson here.
I have a feeling you are our resident urologist.
Albert Bourla CEO of Pfizer has a a veterinary background..Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna is a business man with no science background at all. Bill is a college drop out, and Greta is autistic! What’s your point?
That we should try to hold ourselves to higher standards?
The climate scaremongers: Great Barrier Reef refuses to play the game
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-great-barrier-reef-refuses-to-play-the-game/
Paul Homewood
Yellow Boards By The Road
Friday 19th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
A3095 Foresters Way &
B3430 Nile Mile Ride
Bracknell RG40 3DR
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/1f446.svgplease sharehttps://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/1f446.svg
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
BBC will be all over this have no doubt, obviously they couldn’t just ignore such well qualified and eminent scientists with far more impressive publications than the alarmists.
It’s known about Clintel for 3 years. I doubt it would say anything now.
Excellent piece Chris. Sadly there’s far too much money invested in this madness to stop it, at least in the short term.
What drives me mad is how we come to ‘settled’ science or a ‘consensus’ these days – cancel anyone who disagree’s with the orthodoxy and call it the consensus! Utterly crazy!
We covered this in the pod last week, among other things…
If you guys want to hear our latest podcast, then check it out and subscribe below:
Ep. 51 BANNED FROM TWITTER (Find out why)
We’ve been banned from Twitter for a week…find out why! Plus we talk Canada and Justin Trudeau, your first ‘Listener Rant’, Climate change madness, University PHD’s gone mad, Scotland’s gone crazy, The return of the Big Breakfast and MUCH MORE!
https://therealnormalpodcast.buzzsprout.com/1268768/11142910-ep-51-banned-from-twitter-find-out-why
Consensus is fine if we are talking about Black Holes or Evolution, but we don’t spend trillions of taxpayers money on black holes or Evolution. We don’t impoverish people and take away affordable energy based on what we might think is true about black holes or evolution. ———Consensus science, when it is used as the excuse for public policy is “Official Science”. It is the science that governments use to persuade the public that since all scientists agree then so should they.
Could this be the sound of the cavalry arriving, just in the nick of time?
Anybody who now thinks the government and bureaucrats are anything but incompetent & poorly informed after this covid fiasco that will end up killing more people and destroying more lives and who will now allow them to implement this cult like Net Zero, deserves all of the hardship & destruction it will bring. Only a country of fools would even consider the staggering ineptitude of this policy.
The headline in today’s Daily Telegraph:
“Lockdown feared to be killing more than Covid”
Only 2+ years late to understand what’s been going on; better late than never.
I remember the first time I heard ‘the science is settled was in a BBC announcement that they would no longer talk to people who questioned climate orthodoxy. Since then, I have heard it used enough times to realise this is another example of nudge units using slogans.
We’re in the grip of too many global organisations.
Well done and thank you. About time this ridiculous charade was called out by a larger scientific community. ANY lay person can spend a few hours doing simple research and come to the same conclusions that something is definitely wrong with the current zeitgeist. I have. Most climate models take too smaller averages and either take chunks of graphs that satisfy the narrative or doctor evidence to support their lies. This is not even close to science – its called propaganda and brain washing. When you take in larger time lines and cycles then the picture opens up and we see that we are heading for a time of global cooling. This is logically driven by the sun and the comic array which necessarily pre-empts more localised earthly patterns. Many seem to forget (or is this part of the same hoodwinking of humanity) that we are part of a larger system and a unified whole and we are subject to the forces therein. Sadly it is not just the climate that is treated to such narrowing abuse. The problem however starts with us – we must NOT accept being fed lies and we must all be called upon to do our own research and to stand up and demand the truth. I hope that it does not take a major earth shattering event to wake everyone up to their personal responsibility as a sovereign human being living on our beautiful and kind earth. Best. Isabel
One problem though with your idea that we should all do “our own research” is that people are most of the time too busy with work and family life to investigate every issue. When you have 3 children and you work you cannot be expected to do that. But we are supposed to be able to rely on investigative journalists to do that for us, but on mainstream TV News they are all on board with the climate industrial complex and are really just climate activists with BBC leading the way, and even on the likes of GB News I hear presenters refer to “the climate crisis”. They should not be using that non-scientific terminology. ———–Some, like Mark Steyn whose book “A Disgrace to the Profession” exposes a lot of what this is really about do ask questions and don’t cow tow to this group think “official science”, but even he sometimes cannot get the better of silly activists from “Just Stop Oil” or the daft “Extinction” useful idiots. The majority of people do not have the time to come to a site like this, or to “Watts up with That” etc, and that is a big problem. I have tried speaking gently to friends and family on this issue and you notice that when they hear something they have not heard on the 6 o’clock News they tend to think they are hearing “Conspiracy Theory”. They are like a rabbit in the headlights when you tell them Polar Bears are increasing in number. They think to themselves “What makes you think you know more than the scientists”, and that is the power of propaganda for you.