“… 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.
He added:
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.
http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/
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 ….
You: 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.
–> And yet, we’re not developing “resiliency to weather/climate extremes” because of BS deniers like you and Clintel. (BTW, for fun, check how many of their signatories are climate or climate change or marine or atmospheric scientists. It’s a fun exercise, outing all the financial advisors and such.)
You: Trying to invert the global energy system (a disaster so far) is the “messing with the Earth” that concerns many.
–> “invert the global energy system” … What does that even mean? If not for you deniers, we would have had a smooth transition to a zero-carbon energy economy. So whatever you’re seeing as “a disaster so far” (your words) is on you deniers.
–> “messing with the Earth” … Who exactly is “messing with the Earth”? We’ve been geoengineering the atmosphere and the climate since the Industrial Revolution, but any “messing with the Earth” now is because of you deniers and your delay tactics.
You: And the global government and authoritarianism and ‘expert failure’ that goes with it.
–> The only “expert failure” (your term) is the fossil fuel corporation CEOs who didn’t pivot to renewables when they had the chance, and the handful of paid-for-hire denier scientists who sold out as shills for the fossil fuel industries (and the comforts of our profligate, FF-addicted economy), despite what the science has been telling us for years now.
You: Mitigation policy today will not have any effects out decades–that is the climate math. Adaptation time ….
–> You’re right. Too late for mitigation to save us because you reality-denying b@st@rds have foreclosed on the future. I suppose you’ve all invested in “adaptation time” products and processes, eh?
Happy to entertain your criticisms. First, drop the ad hominem. May the best arguments win. “BS deniers” certainly does not apply to me. The climate alarm is very exaggerated with a book of failed ‘doom’ predictions to date. Since Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, ‘The Population Bomb’. Wind and solar as intermittent, dilute energies scare the landscape and coastal waters–an eco-sin that concentrated, reliable energies avoid.
Yes, adaptation and resiliency are the real choice–and always has been from weather extremes.
In 1766, James Watt launched Industrial Revolution One by marrying a coal burning energy source to a piece of machinery. From there everything took off.
A human race that hadn’t industrialized the planet for tens of thousands of years suddenly in the last two hundred plus years found itself industrializing everything in sight. One of the results is that atmospheric carbon dioxide is now up fifty percent. This wouldn’t matter if the Earth’s natural cooling system were still working just as effectively as ever, but it isn’t. The more carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains, the less effective the Earth’s Natural Cooling System becomes.
The right answer is to let go of Industrial Revolution ONE as swiftly as we can and replace it with Industrial Revolution TWO, based on harnessing solar energy to do the work that fossil fuels up till now have been doing. Here in Iowa, the Republican legislature has been bribed by the fossil fuel industry to pretend that global warming isn’t real, and to mandate natural gas hookups for all new real estate developments.
I have three young grandsons and this kind of nonsense threatens the global climate that they’ll be coping with all their adult lives. I don’t appreciate the murderous implications that go with sticking with fossil fuels when clean energy alternatives are available with the capacity to take over the entire machinery-powering role that fossil fuels have been playing. I want my grandkids and great-grandkids to have an Earth with a safe climate, but the sponsors of this site are plainly as guilty of reaching greed-driven conclusions as are the Republican legislators of Iowa.
My descendants and yours deserve from us an Earth whose Natural Cooling System has been wisely protected, not an Earth whose Natural Cooling System has been recklessly sacrificed by paid-off public officials. Steve Johnson.
Stock energies in the context of economic freedom enabled billions of new people to live great lives as never before. The 100 percent market share of intermittent, dilute energies was over with the advent of coal, then oil, then natural gas. Hurray!
You can’t argue against fossil fuels and human betterment. And CO2 enrichment to green Planet Earth.
What you can argue against is the industrialization of the countryside with wind turbines, solar arrays, and battery packs. Our children deserve a lot better than the crony industrial climate complex. They deserve energy freedom and prosperity.