By CLINTEL GROUP
CLIMATE science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasise that their modelling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made.
What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterisation, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science, most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion, to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound, self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
There is no climate emergency
A worldwide network of over 1,100 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. 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 it 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 modelled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modelled 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 useful policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they 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 plant food. 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 Earth’s plant biomass. It is also good 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. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of any 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.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward, the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts.
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
World Climate Declaration Ambassadors
Nobel Laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, Norway/USA
Professor Guus Berkhout,
Dr. Cornelis Le Pair,
Professor Reynald Du Berger,
Barry Brill, New Zealand
Viv Forbes, Australia
Professor Jeffrey Foss,
Jens Morten Hansen,
Professor László Szarka,
Professor Seok Soon Park,
Professor Jan-Erik Solheim,
Professor Richard Lindzen,
Henri A. Masson,
Professor Ingemar Nordin,
Republic Of Ireland
Professor Ian Plimer,
Douglas Pollock, Chile
Dr. Blanca Parga Landa,
Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italy
Professor Benoît Rittaud,
Dr. Thiago Maia, Brazil
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt,
The Viscount Monckton Of Brenchley, United Kingdom
Dušan Bižić, Croatia, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Serbia And Monte Negro