Five hundred scientists send letter to UN saying “There is no climate crisis”
A group of 500 scientists and other experts have penned a letter to the UN declaring that there is no climate crisis and that there needs to be an open discussion on the issue of climate change. “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 write.
Those who contributed to the letter and research were led by CLINTEL (The Climate Intelligence Foundation) co-founder Guus Berkhout. Most of those who signed the letter are scientists, professors, former directors of environmentalist groups, economists, etc.
The letter reads:
A global network of 500 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 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 letter was sent on September 23rd to address the growing concerns on environmental issues, specifically since the emergence of Greta Thunberg.
There are six main points of their letter: Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming; warming is far slower than predicted; climate policy relies on inadequate models; CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth; global warming has not increased natural disasters; and climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
Read the letter by clicking here.
At a press briefing, scientists said that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming projections predicted temperature increases 4 times higher than what was actually observed, and, thus, such models should in no way be used as a foundation for policy changes.
Furthermore, the IPCC had conceded this point in 2018, saying that climate change models are incapable of perfectly predicting long-term climate change and should not be used as a definitive basis for estimating long-term temperature changes.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible,” the IPCC’s 2018 report states.
These experts warn the UN that “[c]urrent climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”
They hope that their letter will reopen the debate about climate change.
Another group of scientists disputed the letter’s credibility, claiming that it’s credibility rating was “very low”.
“The claims contradict or misrepresent the evidence uncovered by geoscientists, failing to provide support for its conclusions downplaying the threat of climate change,” wrote the website Climate Feedback.
A group of young Ontarians is launching a lawsuit against Doug Ford due to the Progressive Conservative’s inaction on climate change. The youths are arguing that Ford has violated their charter rights by reducing their climate targets, according to the CBC.
The group is claiming that the Ford government’s climate policy will lead to widespread death, which if correct, would understandably violate section 7 of the charter: protection for life, liberty, and security of the person.
The group is also demanding that the Ontario government creates more ambitious legislation for tackling climate change, such as limiting global warming to 1.5 C.
The group is composed of young Ontarians, ranging from the age of 12 to 24. They are being represented by Stockwoods LLP and Ecojustice, which is a group dedicated to stopping climate change through legal action.
This form of climate action is becoming increasingly more common. Earlier this year, for example, another group of young people launched a lawsuit against Trudeau’s federal government. There have been similar lawsuits in the United States and the Netherlands.
Having said this, this is the first lawsuit filed against a provincial government for climate inaction.
On Nov. 19, 2019, Canada abandoned a longstanding, bi-partisan tradition of voting against UN resolutions that single out Israel. Instead, it supported one put forth by North Korea, Egypt, Nicaragua, Zimbabwe, and the Palestinians that ignores crucial context of the conflict. The symbolic move is in direct opposition to the liberal democratic values that Canada has always championed both domestically and on the international stage.
The shift is disturbing for multiple reasons. Canada has consistently maintained a foreign policy focused on promoting democracy and human rights–regardless of which party has been in power. In recent years, Canada has been one of the loudest voices condemning the Maduro regime in Venezuela and abuses in Ukraine.
Canada has also been a consistent ally of Israel. In July 2018, at the request of Canada, the US, and European countries, Israel played an indispensable role in rescuing hundreds of “White Helmet” rescue workers in Syria. According to Canada’s Deputy Head of Mission in Israel at the time, “there was no way to save their lives” without Israel. In 2019, Canada revised its free trade agreement with Israel and adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism–a definition that recognizes as antisemitic efforts that uniquely single out the Jewish State.
So why the apparent contradiction?
The most obvious answer is that the Government of Canada has decided that the ends justify the means. Canada is hoping to gain one of the rotating seats on the UN Security Council in 2021. In order to get the requisite votes, Canada needs dictatorships, autocracies, and the human rights abusers of the world to choose it over its competitors, Norway and Ireland. Sacrificing moral values and switching a symbolic vote here or there could prove beneficial in this regard.
Morally, though, this move comes at an obvious cost.
It is also surely costly to Canadian taxpayers. According to a Nov. 4 CBC article, as of Sept. 30, Canada had already spent close to $2 million on its campaign for a Security Council seat. The article further notes “that sum does not include the salaries of the 13 government employees appointed to work full-time on Canada’s bid,” adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the price tag.
But the UN is not the only arena where Canada has made costly choices recently. This summer, UNRWA, the UN agency responsible for Palestinians, was caught in a major scandal, including accusations of “sexual misconduct, nepotism, retaliation, and other abuses of authority” by senior UNRWA officials. Unlike other Western democracies, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland, which froze funds when the story broke, Global Affairs Canada simply expressed its “concern” and cited the fact that its $50-million contribution had already been provided. But why, given the potential for significant misuse of taxpayer dollars, were funds not withdrawn? Why was a stronger promise of future funding being suspended not given?
Another example is that of Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal government’s strong stance against BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions). Yet, Global Affairs Canada is providing at least $500,000 to a group promoting boycotts of Israel. When alerted to this apparent discrepancy between policy and practice, Global Affairs did not rescind funds, but instead added an unsatisfactory provision to the grant that states no funds will be used for BDS campaigns. However, money is fungible, rendering such promises empty. If Canada truly rejects BDS, it should have absolutely no financial relationship with groups that advance discriminatory campaigns against Israel.
There are also costs for regular Canadian citizens. Consider the virulent antisemitism wrapped in anti-Israel packaging seen on Toronto campuses the past couple weeks–whether it be kosher food being labelled “pro-Israel” or Israeli speakers needing police protection. What message is the government sending to young Canadians with this new foreign policy approach?
However, all is not yet lost. Canada can refuse to be a tool in the hands of human rights abusing regimes and side with democracy at the UN. It can freeze and revoke funds to groups that can no longer be entrusted with Canadian taxpayer funds. It can ensure that there are checks and balances in place to guarantee that foreign aid is in line with stated policy.
But, to do this it will have to decide whether maintaining its moral character is more important than the fleeting boost in diplomatic prestige a UN Security Council seat brings. If the price is abandoning Canadian values, then surely it is not worth it.
Becca Wertman is Canada Liaison and Managing Editor at NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute.
America’s favourite Saturday afternoon activity, college football has now officially become a part of the culture wars. Today’s big match-up between Ivy League rivals Yale and Harvard has been disrupted by a large group of angry student protestors demanding action on the “climate crisis.”
The protestors unfurled large banners that read “NOBODY WINS: YALE & HARVARD ARE COMPLICIT IN CLIMATE INJUSTICE” in a surreal scene that Barstool Sports referred to as “peak 2019.”
Football fans all over social media were not pleased to say the least. But some saw the humour in the situation.
The protest lasted for 48 minutes. ESPN reports that many of the protestors asked to be arrested.
In April, 2014, the Globe and Mail published an article, “Climate change and health: Extreme heat a ‘silent killer.’” In it, the reporter cites the claim of an alleged expert from a non-profit, Clean Air Partnership (CAP), that maximum temperatures in Toronto could be expected to rise 7 C by 2045.
The reporter did not query the figure in her write-up, and her editor apparently didn’t take a good look at what she had written, or else he or she would have reared back and yelled, WTF? A predicted rise of 23 C in a single century? Get hold of that guy and check that you got the right figure.
Imagine if some alleged expert on health care had told the same Globe reporter that Ontario would require a budget of a trillion dollars to cover coming claims on the provincial health services. She would have gasped and challenged him. When it comes to climate alarmism, most media people have simply muted their powers of critical thinking, because they see themselves as conduits for alarmism Kool-Aid, not independent observers.
Thankfully, not all journalists march in lockstep on the issue. In an article for the American Thinker, Canadian researcher Sierra Rayne poured scorn on it: “To say [the 7 C theory] is insanely large would be an understatement.”
Rayne pointed out that a cursory perusal of the Environment Canada Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data database would illustrate that the daily summer maximum temperatures in Toronto showed no upward trend whatsoever. She further noted that a database for the WMO-certified Pearson Airport site demonstrated there was “absolutely no temporal correlation” for extreme July or August maximum temperatures between 1938 (when the database was initiated) and 2012.
In fact, there was no source in Canada then—and still isn’t—from which CAP could have plucked that ludicrous figure. University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick had at that time just created his invaluable site, yourenvironment.ca, which sets out a complete temporal record of officially recorded air and pollution levels everywhere in Canada. The data for the site is culled from provincial environment and natural resources ministries, or from Environment Canada. Over many decades, no matter where you look in Canada, the graph trends remain resolutely horizontal with tiny upward and downward spikes indicating extreme weather blips.
Every layperson who identifies as an alarmism skeptic has his or her own pivotal moment, and that idiotic “news” story in the Globe was mine. When reporters and editors act like deer in the headlights in the reception and dissemination of demonstrably impossible “information,” it’s clear evidence that they have been gripped by a socially contagious virus. These are the people who in the 19th century would have believed tulip bulb prices were never going to peak, even if every single family on the planet had enough tulip bulbs to fill a half-acre garden.
The late writer Michael Crichton, author of the best-selling 2004 techno-thriller, “State of Fear,” was one of the first independent students of environmentalism to define environmentalism as a “religion,” and to observe that its principal characteristic was to cater to the state of alarm he believed is an inherent human need. Its dogmatists act as though they have been appointed Morals Police. And they do not take kindly to dissent.
Al Gore, whose 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth was received with uncritical awe, (one of my friends, normally very brainy, described it as a “religious experience”) was later found by a UK court to contain “nine key scientific errors.” It was deemed rife with “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” and the judge ruled that the “apocalyptic vision” presented made it not an impartial scientific analysis, but a “political film.” He continues to hector the world as though that never happened from the depths of a home whose electricity kilowatt hours exceed twenty times the national average.
In 2007, environmental guru David Suzuki stormed out of a Toronto radio station interview when the host suggested global warming was not yet a “totally settled issue.” The incident revealed the mindset of the enviro-ayatollahs. (We see its 16-year-old version in little Pied Piper leader of the Children’s Crusade Greta “how-dare-you” Thunberg.) Suzuki perceived the radio host as a blasphemer, unworthy of his rational rebuttal. Suzuki actually felt enviro-infidels should be literally suppressed, and even opined that politicians who aren’t on board with his views should go to prison. You’d think a guy that far down the rabbit hole would be minding his own enviro P’s and Q’s, but like Al Gore, his real estate portfolio is humongous and his carbon footprint immense.
Ordinary Canadians were afraid to criticize Suzuki, but he got his comeuppance in 2013 in Australia when, speaking to an audience of actual scientist who knew their stuff, he revealed his ignorance about actual climate data. I confess to a very satisfying hour of Schadenfreude in watching him make him a fool of himself on camera. Thankfully, hopefully feeling a bit chastened, he retired from the scene in 2014.
Hard to believe, but we’re now marking the tenth anniversary of what journalist James Delingpole dubbed Climategate. The astonishing truths of the climate-change religion’s seamy underbelly revealed in the masses of internal communications by supposedly authoritative and honest alpha climatologists might have acted as a therapeutic purgative to the credulous masses, but the collusive rush to exculpation by the usual suspects put paid to any such hopes.
Let me offer a word of advice to my fellow non-scientists who think they do not deserve to have a voice in this discussion for lack of credentials. Do not allow yourself to be intimidated by those who wield the scimitar of “authority” to speak on this issue because you are not a “peer-reviewed” PhD or because you don’t cite “primary sources.” You’ll notice they don’t scold Greta Thunberg for her reliance on others.
You have a working brain. You have the ability to read and assess the argumentation of those who have been researching climate change at the primary-source level for many years. You have a pretty good understanding of the difference between actual facts and “projections.” As time passes and prediction after prediction fails to come true, you have a right to question where scientific objectivity ends and ideology begins. It’s your tax dollars that are gushing forth in the service of a policy that is very likely based on false assumptions, and which could be better spent in fighting pollution and human misery. You have a right to interrogate the premises that are turning the spigot.
Keep reading. There are many excellent websites and books that lay out evidence-based skeptics’ position. For a one-stop enlightening, comprehensive, reader-friendly and entertaining overview, I recommend the above-mentioned journalist James Delingpole’s 2012 book “Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colours.” In the seven years since it was published, Delingpole told me, nothing has happened to change his mind. If anything, the passage of time has confirmed his challenges to alarmism.