There is no climate emergency — 500 experts

Press briefing

AS THE LATEST UN climate summit begins in New York, a new, high-level global network of 500 prominent climate scientists and professionals has submitted a declaration that there is no “climate emergency”.

The group has sent a European Climate Declaration with a registered letter to António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Professor Guus Berkhout, of The Netherlands, who organized the Declaration, said: “So popular is the Declaration with scientists and researchers worldwide that signatories are flooding in not only from within Europe but also from other countries such as the United States and Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”

The group’s letter warns the U.N. that “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.”

The Declaration adds that the models, which have predicted far more warming than they should (see diagram below), “are not remotely plausible as policy tools”, in that “they … exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2” and “ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”

The “climate emergency” that never was: Global warming predicted by climate models (purple and red cursors) is three times the warming expected on the basis of officially-estimated man-made influences on climate (orange cursor) and four times the observed warming (green cursor).

The letter invites the Secretary-General to work with the global network to organize a constructive, high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate in early 2020.

For further information, please contact Professor Guus Berkhout (, +31 651 214 737,
or contact any of the National Ambassadors listed in the Declaration.

Visits: 1569

11 Thoughts on “There is no climate emergency — 500 experts

  1. Peter Fraser on 24/09/2019 at 12:11 pm said:

    I wonder whom the U.N. Secretary General will believe, 500 eminent climate scientists from around the world or a dyslexic Swedish sixteen year old. Unfortunately I believe it will be the latter. It is a mad world we live in Most of the the climate hysteria can be laid at the door of the western mainstream media and their refusal to publish anything that does not fit their agenda.

  2. Gwan on 24/09/2019 at 9:10 pm said:

    I agree with you 100% Peter .
    I saw that child on the news and uninformed people would believe her but none of them realize that as the worlds population increases, and the same applies to countries .If growth is suppressed then every one becomes poorer and poverty becomes the normal .
    Graham Anderson Proud to be farming to feed the world .

  3. Brigitte Allain on 24/09/2019 at 11:16 pm said:


    There is but a handful of publishing climate scientists who do accept the scientific consensus and IPCC reports.

    Guus Berkhoutis an oil company engineer.

    More lies.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 25/09/2019 at 12:02 am said:


    Guus Berkhout is an oil company engineer.

    Not now. He left Shell over 50 years ago. He’s also a physicist.

    There is but a handful of publishing climate scientists who do accept the scientific consensus and IPCC reports.

    This is astounding. I’m impressed that you believe only a handful are behind the IPCC, because so do I. The overwhelming majority of scientists express in private doubts about the AGW hypothesis.

    But I don’t tell lies, and it’s not necessary to tolerate your abuse.

  5. Simon on 25/09/2019 at 8:29 am said:

    I’m calling BS on this chart. The GCMs are calibrated on historic data so by definition they model the past well. It’s not possible to hind-cast back to 1850 because the data is not available.
    If this was for real, there would be a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal.
    It looks to me as if the authors are confusing observed warming to date with the transient or equilibrium climate sensitivity. These are not the same thing, as there is still more warming yet to occur given the current level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
    Once again, so-called skeptics are proving to be extremely gullible.

  6. Richard Treadgold on 25/09/2019 at 11:05 am said:


    You say:

    If this was for real, there would be a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal.

    There’s no paper, but a very good article by Christopher Monckton, showing thorough referencing of his argument. It’s on WUWT, where Monckton gives “the real reasons why skeptics are sceptical.” The first is: “The world is warming at one-third of the predicted rate.” He gives details and references thus:

    Observed warming from 1850-2011 (lower scale) corresponding to projected Charney sensitivity (IPCC 2013 and CMIP5 2012: upper scale). The 3.35 K CMIP5 midrange projection (red cursor) implies 2.4 K transient warming from 1850-2011, thrice the observed 0.75 K (green cursor) and 2.4 times the 1 K period equilibrium warming to be expected on the basis of net estimated anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance to 2011 (orange cursor). The revised Charney-sensitivity interval (pale green zone) found after correcting errors of physics in current models is consistent with observation and with expectation.

    Projection vs. observation: IPCC (1990, p. xxiv) had projected 0.33 K decade–1 transient warming, with warming expected from 1990-2025 (ibid., p. xii). However, when only 0.35 K had occurred by June 2012 (HadCRUT4: Morice et al. 2012), IPCC (2013) near-halved its transient-warming projection to 0.17 decade–1, and yet did not reduce its projected [1.5, 4.5] K Charney-sensitivity interval, which remained in IPCC (2013) as in IPCC (1990) and in Charney (1979).

    Projection vs. expectation: The mid-range net anthropogenic radiative forcing to 2011 is 2.3 W m–2 (IPCC 2013, fig. SPM.5), of which 0.6 W m–2 radiative imbalance (Smith et al. 2015) remained in 2011 and must fall to zero at equilibrium. Therefore, by 2011, 17/23, or 74%, of the 2.3 W m–2 net anthropogenic forcing was reflected in the 0.75 K industrial-era warming from 1850-2011 (HadCRUT4: Morice et al., 2012). Then implicit period equilibrium sensitivity was 0.75 / 0.74, or 1 K, and the implicit system-gain factor or open-loop gain was 23/17, or 1.35. Since reference sensitivity (sensitivity before allowing for feedback) in response to doubled CO2 is 1.04 K in the fifth-generation ensemble of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5: derived from data in Andrews et al. 2012), implicit mid-range Charney sensitivity, assuming invariant unit feedback response with temperature, is 1.35 x 1.04, or 1.4 K. The 3.35 K midrange estimate of Charney sensitivity derived ibid. accordingly exceeds expectation by a factor 2.4.

    Since global warming is not occurring at anything like the projected rate, the imagined harms from global warming are not occurring at anything like the projected rates either.

    Monckton gives three more solid reasons for climate scepticism:

    • Official climatology’s science was wrong.
    • The economic case for climate inaction is overwhelming.
    • Science is not done by consensus – and there is no consensus.

    To the denial of consensus on the climate hypothesis he adds the weight of peer review:

    As Legates et al. (2015) demonstrated, of 11,944 climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011, only 41, or 0.3%, stated that recent warming was mostly man-made, or words to that effect. There is no “consensus”.

    President Obama tweeted, following a claim by John Cook (2013), “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

    Dr David Legates (2013), rebutting Cook’s claim, remarked: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

    I thoroughly recommend the Anthony Watts story for close study.

    You say “It’s not possible to hind-cast back to 1850 because the data is not available.” But I see nothing in the chart suggesting the CMIP forecasts fail to do this — it’s as though you wanted to nitpick something at any cost.

  7. Gwan on 25/09/2019 at 11:22 am said:

    Simon, here again, showing your absolute ignorance of climate and science.
    The colored graph shows clearly that all the climate models run far to hot .
    Now even you should be able to deduct that if they are tuned to the increase of CO2 and they run hot then that CO2 is not the climate driver . Climate models predict nothing as they are tuned to CO2 being the main forcing agent. Water vapour swamps CO2 and as I have told you many times the theory of global warming rely s on positive water vapour feed back and the tropical hot spot neither have been found .
    I would be very careful about calling this BS if I were you .
    500 climate scientists from around the world are not denying that CO2 causes a little retained warmth but they are telling you and the IPCC that CO2 is a very very small player and taken to its conclusion the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will only cause 6 tenths of one degree Celsius of warming .
    Nothing to get your nickers in a twist simon but the biggest scam that the world has ever seen ,
    Graham Anderson
    Proud to be farmer in New Zealand helping feed the world,

  8. Simon on 25/09/2019 at 1:58 pm said:

    Thanks Richard for confirming my suspicions. Monkton is trying to infer climate sensitivity from observed warming to date but he hasn’t worked out yet that the climate would continue to warm even if net emissions fell to zero immediately, primarily because of CO2 oceanic out-gassing.
    He is also confusing and comparing equilibrium, transient, and Charney sensitivites which are not the same thing. He also makes corrections due to ‘errors in physics’ which only he seems to be aware of.
    There are reasons why stuff like this isn’t in the peer-reviewed literature.

  9. Richard Treadgold on 25/09/2019 at 4:29 pm said:


    the climate would continue to warm even if net emissions fell to zero immediately, primarily because of CO2 oceanic out-gassing.

    Not much warming, otherwise we’d have positive feedback. We’ve never seen that.

    There are reasons why stuff like this isn’t in the peer-reviewed literature.

    Are you joking? It’s because the gatekeepers disagree with it and won’t let it in.

    But is this all you can say? You’re still not answering my questions.

  10. John Mullan on 12/01/2020 at 9:08 am said:

    I’m just an intelligent (150 IQ) adult with enough sense to look at both sides of the debate and have come to the conclusion that well meaning people and their children world-wide are being used to further what seems like a political cause.

    As a former left wing socialist, I recognise the tactics being used and I’d like to do something to let folk stop and think about who is taking their hearts and minds for political reasons. Any suggestions as to how I can help would be welcome.

    Jock Mullan

    • Richard Treadgold on 12/01/2020 at 9:39 am said:

      That’s admirable, John, on the face of it. Tell me, how would you like to help?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation