1200 Scientists and Professionals: “There is No Climate Emergency”
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that relatively early on in the covid pandemic cycle, leading infectious disease experts created the Great Barrington Declaration.
The formal declaration stressed that lockdowns were destructive and “focused protection” of vulnerable individuals was the way to properly address the highly infectious, novel virus.
Over 4000 scientists, including a good number of epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, signed the document.
It turns out these scientists were correct.
The effects of lockdown may now be killing more people than are dying of Covid, official statistics suggest.
Figures for excess deaths from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that around 1,000 more people than usual are currently dying each week from conditions other than the virus.
The Telegraph understands that the Department of Health has ordered an investigation into the figures amid concern that the deaths are linked to delays to and deferment of treatment for conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease.
Perhaps it is time to consider if the World Climate Declaration, which has been signed by 1,200 climate scientists and related professionals, may be something to seriously consider, promote, and act on. In the document, these scientists affirm that there is “no climate emergency.”
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.”
The declaration is being promoted by the CLINTEL Group, which plans to give “solicited and unsolicited” advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
I am thinking that most of the advice they will give will be unsolicited. Here is hoping that policy makers, teachers, and everyone else listen to the group’s many points:
- Natural causes contribute to climate changes.
- Warming has been slower than predicted.
- Climate policy is being based on inadequate models.
- Carbon dioxide is plant food, and the basis for life on Earth.
- Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
Perhaps the last point the CLINTEL Group makes is the most critical: 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 re-adapt.
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, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
For those of you with a background in the climate sciences, and who would like to sign, information to do so is HERE.
If “Green New Deal” polices are allowed to continue, they will be even more destructive on this nation and the world than the covid policies have been.
See more here: legalinsurrection.com
Header image: Janata Weekly
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Greg Spinolae
| #
Great to see PROPER SCIENCE espoused by so many ACTUAL SCIENTISTS.
Clearly, rigourously and succinctly delivered so that even politicians might be able to comprehend.
It’s time to EXPUNGE the ClimateScam from all places of influence.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Not long ago I posted a series or replies in a blog about the OBVIOUS existence of Natural warming is still in place and has been for millions of years because as warmist/alarmists repeatedly claims for many years that CO2 hovered around the 280 ppm through most of the interglacial which is around 11,000 years yet there is plenty of evidence that we had large temperature swings lasting for hundreds of years at a time while CO2 sat around the 260-280 ppm for those same years.
It is abundantly clear CO2 isn’t driving any warming trend and by the IPCC’s own formula can’t even keep up with the much higher energy loss to space than it can produce warm forcing which is what is going on today.
CO2 warming claims are stupid as hell!
Reply
Wisenox
| #
More climate change articles. I feel like we’re reliving the hockey stick and Al Gore era.
The people, especially those who’ve been vaccinated, need to get 3 conversations started before its too late:
Are vaccinated people considered intellectual property?
Crossing the blood brain barrier is listed in the vaccine patent. Was this done to us?
The vaccine patent installs carbon nanotubes. Was this done to us, and are the nanotubes connected to the internet of bodies in any way?
Controlled opposition will never mention those 3 topics, so its imperative that people start the conversations for themselves. They will rehash the same crap ad nauseam, but refuse to mention the patents, intellectual property rights or the internet of bodies and nanotubes. They aren’t fighting for you, they’re distracting you from focusing on the important things.
Not everyone took the vaccine. Those who did need to have these conversations before its its too late.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Leslie,
While sympathetic to the 1200 scientists who are calling for a debate, my suspicion is that it won’t change a thing. Lobbying governments won’t help, even if 12,000 or 120,000 sign the petition. In 1998 30,000 scientists signed a petition, but you can read on snopes.com that someone who believes in the IPCC story will always poo-poo this away, regardless of the numbers. Read the climate consensus article on wikipedia, and learn that no scientific journal or institute will touch even valid climate skepticism with a barge pole. That battle is lost, and will remain so until we can achieve what our medical colleagues achieved: reclaim our scientific authorities. The only way to do so is to persistently demonstrate – as the Covid critics did – that skeptics often see their predictions come true, and that trust in our scientific authorities – such as the CDC – has vanished along with their scientific credibility..
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Joe Postma: “I worked with this CLINTEL group extensively a few years ago in helping get them set up, and in discussing the fundamental science aspects with them. Since then they’ve been working on getting more signees, and I guess they finally felt that they had enough to now release this statement.
The “CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth” and also the “Climate policy relies on inadequate models” headings are directly from me, and my interacting with them, although on the later point they weren’t willing to go all the way and take the position I write in my books, not because my position is incorrect, but because it is just too unbelievable how fraudulent the basis of the science is.”
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
John,
I am glad Joe Postma helped educate these folks. The has certainly enlightened me to the realities of planetary warming and cooling, throughout our solar system.
The disappointment I have is that many critics of ‘CO2 Warming Theory’ have become ‘lukewarmers’ so they don’t upset the apple cart of academia. Instead of simply saying, as Joe Postma might say, “This hypothesis is complete rubbish, which violates both First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics”! They choose a non-confrontational, low testosterone approach to discussing reality and truth.
Most of the folks studying ‘climate science’ could not explain radiational heat transfer if their life depended upon it.
Would you take financial investment advice from your barber?
Reply