The ‘consensus’ of scientists against the climate scare
We are told by activists, politicians, media and official science bodies that climate change science is “settled,” our emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing a climate crisis and we must take action to prevent dangerous global warming. Supposedly, only a handful of unqualified naysayers contest this conclusion.
Besides the absurdity of the notion that humanity, at this stage in our development, could hope to “control climate change” of planet Earth, observant readers will ask: how does anyone know that there is a consensus among climate scientists that our CO2 emissions are driving global climate, let alone that they are causing a crisis? After all, the climate had been changing for billions of years before we arrived on the scene. Are all the ancient natural climate drivers suddenly being eclipsed by human CO2 emissions?
No one knows for sure, although much recent research suggests it is highly improbable. It is also true that no one knows, or even currently can know, what the so-called “consensus” is in the world climate science community about whether our CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis.
This is because there is not known to have been a conclusive worldwide poll about the topic among the thousands of scientists from the vast array of disciplines related to understanding the causes of global climate change. In The myth of climate consensus: What they’re not telling you, Part 1 of this series, I demonstrated how none of the open letters and declarations from scientists and scientific organizations about climate change that NASA cites to show the supposed consensus actually address the most important question of all, namely, “Are greenhouse gas emissions from human activities causing climate change so dangerous that it is worth spending trillions of dollars to try to stop?”
Of course, scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands anyway, no matter how scientifically esteemed those expressing their views are. If it were otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat, and space travel would be impossible.
Then, there is the problem of national and international science bodies endorsing the global warming theory without the known support of a majority of their membership. For example, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) and a leading Canadian energy expert, “Archie” Robinson of Deep River, Ontario, explained what happened with a Royal Society (the world’s oldest scientific organization) climate initiative supporting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report:
“the president of the Royal Society of London … drafted a resolution in favour and circulated it to other academies of science inviting co-signing. … The president of the RSC, not a member of the [RSC’s] Academy of Science, received the invitation. He considered it consistent with the position of the great majority of scientists, as repeatedly but erroneously claimed by Kyoto proponents, and so signed it. The resolution was not referred to the Academy of Science for comment, not even to its council or president.”
A similar episode happened in the United States and Russia concerning the Royal Society effort and a survey of pronouncements from other science bodies reveals that they are usually just the opinions of the groups’ executives or committees specifically appointed by the executive. The rank-and-file scientist members are rarely consulted at all.
Lord Robert May, former president of the Royal Society, said:
“On one hand, you have the entire scientific community [supporting the climate alarm], and on the other, you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
But Lord May was completely mistaken. See The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%’ – The Heartland Institute. Not only is there no known broad agreement in the “entire scientific community” about the causes of climate change (and it only matters what climate experts think, not all scientists), but literally thousands of scientifically qualified individuals have endorsed open letters and other declarations opposing, either directly or indirectly, the CO2/dangerous global warming hypothesis. Consider the following open letters, declarations, and other documents, some linked to the documents and endorser lists, starting with the most recent:
2020 – present: World Climate Declaration: Organized by CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence), this declaration, signed by at least 1,983 endorsers, states that “there is no climate emergency” and calls for more balanced climate policies.
2022: No Consensus on Climate Crisis, Scientist Survey Finds – The Heartland Institute
2019: The European Climate Declaration – Oslo: This declaration, signed by hundreds of individuals, stated that there is “no climate emergency” and also called for a more balanced approach to climate policy.
2018: Climate Scientists’ Register | ICSC – Canada, signed by 143 scientists from 22 countries who have studied the causes of climate change and agree with the following statement: “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”
2016: The Australian Climate Declaration: A group of scientists and professionals in Australia signed this declaration, questioning the evidence for human-driven climate change.
2010: Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) letter to the U.S. EPA–signed by 35 climate and related experts supporting challenges by the US Chamber of Commerce and three states that question the basis for the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” under the Clean Air Act.
2008– 2019 – The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Reports: While not a single letter, these reports are often cited by realists as counterpoints to the IPCC’s findings. Here are the NIPCC reports in which thousands of peer-reviewed papers are cited, casting doubt on the climate catastrophe hypothesis:
2009: Cato Institute newspaper ad campaign letter (above); 115 scientist signers. The letter focused on skepticism about the urgency of climate action and questioned the reliability of climate models and predictions. It was published as an open letter in major newspapers to influence public opinion and policy discussions on climate change.
2009: Copenhagen Climate Challenge, which listed 166 experts well qualified in climate science plus some in ‘other related disciplines.’ Sent during the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, this letter emphasized doubts about the science underpinning human-caused climate change.
2009: Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society — signed by 61 experts, expressed skepticism about the supposed scientific consensus on climate change. The letter called for APS to change its official statement on climate change, arguing that it overstated the certainty of human impact on global warming. The signatories advocated for a more open and balanced discussion on climate change, emphasizing the need for scientific rigor and debate.
2009: The Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming: Rooted in religious perspectives, this declaration expressed skepticism about catastrophic climate change and emphasized stewardship of the Earth.
2008: THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, 1,497 endorsers, over half of them well qualified in science and technology and 206 of them climate science specialists or scientists in very closely related fields. Released after The Heartland Institute’s climate realists’ conference in New York City, it argued against the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2007: Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (the “2007 Bali open letter”), 100 scientist signers, criticized the IPCC’s conclusions and called for a reassessment of climate science. Then UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon never acknowledged receipt of either the 2007 Bali open letter, or the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Challenge but mail tracking showed he did receive it.
2007: “Independent Summary for Policymakers” questioning the UN IPCC’s 4th Assessment report (2007) AR4 and contesting many of its conclusions, organized by the Fraser Institute in Canada: list of 10 authors and reviewed by over 50 scientists worldwide.
2007: Letter to the American Physical Society: A group of physicists sent this open letter criticizing the society’s stance on climate change and asking for a reconsideration.
2006: Open Kyoto to Debate – An open letter to Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, from 60 climate experts, challenging the scientific basis for climate policies.
2003: Protocol lacks ‘credible science’ – Open letter to Canadian PM Paul Martin, 46 leading scientists endorsed this, challenging the scientific basis for climate policies.
2002: Open letter to Canadian PM Jean Chretien, 30 scientist signers, challenging the scientific basis for climate policies.
1997: Global Warming Petition Project – organized through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, starting in 1997. That document now claims some 31,487 U.S. scientists and technically qualified signers, 9,029 with PhDs–see breakdown. Scientists, in this case, physicist Dr. Edward Teller, signed the statement as follows:
1995: Leipzig Declaration on Climate Change, 80 scientist signers plus 25 TV meteorologists. This declaration questioned the scientific consensus on climate change and opposed the Kyoto Protocol.
1992: SEPP Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, 47 signers. The signatories expressed skepticism about the certainty of anthropogenic global warming and opposed environmental regulations based on “highly uncertain scientific theories.”
1992: The Heidelberg Appeal: Presented at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, this appeal questioned the urgency of environmental policies based on what the signatories considered uncertain science.
No list like the above would be complete without including reference to the 15 massive International Conferences on Climate Change put on by The Heartland Institute across the world from 2008 to 2023. Hundreds of climate realist scientists, economists, engineers and policy experts spoke at these meetings, easily the most important climate events ever held.
So, how many of these did you see reported in mainstream media? Any? And that is the problem faced by climate skeptics — most mainstream media do not report on these declarations, and, on the rare occasion when they do, dismiss them as endorsed by unqualified ‘outliers’ from the scientific community. Consequently, even though these open letters and other documents are signed by some of the absolute leaders in the world in understanding the causes of climate change, the majority of the public knows little about these lists, freeing the government to proceed as if they didn’t even exist.
So, the next time someone tells you that only a few unqualified scientists in unrelated fields disagree with the politically correct view on the causes and consequences of climate change, send them the above list and ask, “Really? How about these?”