• Did You Hear About the Scientists Challenging Climate Change at the UN?

    Surge Summary: A group of over 500 climate professionals this week sent a formal declaration to the United Nations challenging climate change orthodoxy. But climate activist Greta Thunberg swallowed up all the media attention. 

    “Global warming” and “climate change” talk is a constant – we hear about it nearly every day. Especially lately, with the United Nations’ appearance this week of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish climate activist. If possible, she stirred up the save-the-planet hysteria even more than it had been.

    But that’s not the only fresh news involving climate change and the intergovernmental organization on Turtle Bay.

    What? You haven’t heard about this?

    Over at Breitbart, Thomas D. Williams details,

    More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change.

    At the same time young Ms. Thunberg was in New York addressing the U.N. Climate Action Summit, ripping into world leaders for robbing her of her future, literal scientists and specialists were charging the United Nations to focus on the facts and eschew overheated emotion and hype.

    “Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration states. “Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.”

    The scientists underscored the importance of not rushing into enormously expensive climate action before fully ascertaining the facts.

    An appeal from scientists to other scientists, that they cling to actual science, untainted by bias? A plea for lawmakers to take note of environmentalist policies’ possible destructive, unintended consequences? A demand for free and open debate on all matters climatological?

    How dare these “climate-change deniers”!!!

    Along with urging caution regarding remedies that might be as detrimental as the alleged problem, these contrarian climate experts took issue with some of the much-promoted conclusions about the supposed threat.

    “There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.”

    Public policy must respect scientific and economic realities, the declarations’ signatories insist. They must not simply reflect modern fashionable frenzy.

    They frankly say it: “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 adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world,” they state.

    This brave and bold scientific coalition get specific, criticizing the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is presently founded. They’re “unfit for their purpose,” they declare.

    “Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions on the basis of results from such immature models. … Current climate policies pointlessly, grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, continuous electrical power.”

    “We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation,” they declare.

    Sounds prudent. Utterly reasonable. Measured.

    But it cuts against the chicken-little narrative favored by the media, scientific community and popular culture. So … back to Greta Thunberg …

    This column has been updated.

    H/T: Breitbart, Thomas D. Williams

    Image: Adapted from: Steve Cadman – originally posted to Flickr as The United Nations Building, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4478254


    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend