Published in the Financial Post today:
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations
First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.
November 29, 2012
Mr. Secretary-General:
On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”
On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”
We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.
Read the full letter and signatories here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is a pervasive group of journalists, lobbyists, activists, NGO types, ‘scientists’, crony capitalists, bureaucrats and politicians who do so well out of climate alarmism that their only fear is that the music will someday stop.
This, for example, is why there is no legacy media criticism, or even mention, of the appalling waste represented by the Doha conference. Insiders are discussing ‘important’ matters with other insiders, and their profligacy is being covered up by more insiders. A genuine consensus.
They act like an occupying power of the colonial era; living high on the hog of resources that do not belong to them and doing everything in their power to suppress dissent and impose onerous regulations on the colonised communities.
Nice theater but it’s not really about climate – it’s about a horse to get the UN in charge of the world.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/the-enduring-uncertainty-beyond-the-climate-basics/
is Revkin going ‘soft’ on deniers??
Do you sense the slight shift to a more scientific view and abandoning his faith based view??
regards.
Ties in with the Scotsman article.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/26/28gate-in-the-scotsman.html
Bravo!
Let the truth be spoken !
Are they asking for the IPCC to apologize and admit that their recommendations are bunk?
“The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”
—
They’ve been saying the “debate is over” from day one, before the debate could even get started. When are we actually going to have an honest debate on the subject of climate change? Scientists of the past, like Einstein, invited others to prove them wrong. Scientists of today seem to think it’s a waste of time to even engage in debate on their theories.
Good letter. Concise, accurate, factual and, I think, respectful. It will not be welcomed, especially when one reads the list of signatories. There are some who will be regarded as controversial, including our host most probably but there’s no avoiding the credentials. Of course, arguing from authority is not liked on WUWT but, at least one can say. look, they are highly credentialed , go challenge *them* on the science.
Revkin’s Doha contribution:
29 Nov: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: The Enduring Cloudiness in Climate and Coastal Forecasts
There are many reasons humanity is having a very hard time addressing the buildup of long-lived greenhouse gases contributing to global warming…
One big reason is that while the basics of greenhouse theory have been clear for decades, the most consequential aspects of human-driven climate change remain the least certain…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/the-enduring-uncertainty-beyond-the-climate-basics/
at that point he links to this 46-page pdf, and i stopped reading the rest of his column:
Institute for Empirical Research in Economics
University of Zurich
Working Paper No. 510
Viewing the Future through a Warped Lens: Why Uncertainty Generates Hyperbolic Discounting
Thomas Epper, Helga Fehr-Duda and Adrian Bruhin
September 2010
http://www.iew.uzh.ch/wp/iewwp510.pdf
I think the Precautionary Principle should be invoked here, and warmists should have to walk and canoe to their meetings, to reduce greenhouse gasses, and help make (hopefully) positive change, by reducing the impact of climate change. (sarc off) There is a word that gets a lot of usage, “impact” in enviro-speak.
Absolutely superb. Come on somebody, call these people “deniers”?
I agree with the sentiments but I feel we are going to a Politics Gunfight with a Science Knife.
So nice to see actual climate scientists speak up. Thank you for posting!
Feels like opening presents before Christmas. Are we nearing the tipping point where science trumps ideology?
Don’t forget this one:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Now up to 31,487 Skeptical American Scientists.
That’s about 50 times the number of “scientists” that are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process.
That would put the “scientists” promoting CO2 global warming at 2% of the combined groups.
I think I saw somewhere, I dont remember the exact numbers at all but, that of some 30,000 articles on climate only some 25 make an argument against AGW. So with 5 people per paper, think those 125 are the ones?
Somehow I doubt it…
I also heard in a talk earlier this evening (my stomach growling thru the whole thing) that 96% of all warming is due to humans, and almost 100% since 1970. My “Precautionary Principle” is we should do what we can to stop AGW, but it still wont be enuf.
I wish I could sign the petition but I’m just an old construction worker who has been and still working outside in this weather/climate. I believe we are in a similar weather pattern that we had back in the late 60’s. A the weather pattern that made London Fog coats famous.
Published on Wednesday 23 June 2010 19:15
http://www.scotsman.com/news/gerald-warner-weathering-the-true-lies-of-global-warming-newspeak-1-1371106
There is one thing I do not understand. Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations? This man has no political power. Who cares what he says about climate or anything else? I can not imagine that anybody does. He has no influence on political decisions.
Moderators, please use your judgment in releasing this comment. I mean no disrespect to anyone.
My apologies to the blog, however, I wondered what has been happening today in in the minds of those who are participants in Doha, Qatar with respect to this particularly powerful letter you know they have viewed.
As soon as I finished reading the list of those who signed the letter,,,, I thought of what crossed the minds of the organizing body.
I wonder what the participants are thinking right now too?
🙂
Even if every scientist on earth believed fanatically in CAGW there is zero that can be done about it.
See co2 emissions until 2035 from the EIA. The warmist should take their protest to China and India c.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm The OECD will increase by 6% and the non OECD will increase by 73% by 2035.
Simple facts, simple maths and a simple graph, so what is it these fools don’t understand? The OECD could all retire to caves and it still wouldn’t make a jot of difference to climate or thr temp.
Meanwhile they’re quite happy to waste trillions $ until 2100 for a big fat zero return on their investment.
They are all completely barking mad with no logic and no reason.
No. Science holds the Aces. Global-warming is just a busted-flush, waiting to be called.
The problem is, some people will get cold while we wait for the game to end.
E.g. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/energy-bill-sparks-protests/
Lew Skannen says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:06 pm
I agree with the sentiments but I feel we are going to a Politics Gunfight with a Science Knife.
**********************************************************************************************************************
The pen is mightier than the sword to use an old quote. Just look at the Arab spring and all that is happening in the world. Eventually the truth will prevail. Wrongheadedness will win for a time, but if it is wrong, it will fail.
Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:41 pm
There is one thing I do not understand. Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations? This man has no political power. Who cares what he says about climate or anything else? I can not imagine that anybody does. He has no influence on political decisions.
=======================================================================
No political power? Debatable. But there’s no question that The UN wants their leader, whoever that may be at the time, to have political power.
There are a lot of names signed to that letter that know what they are talking about. (What was all that talk about “The Consensus”?)
Dismiss this as a “PR shot” if you like…but it’s a shot it in the right direction even if you don’t aprove of the target.
Maybe the problem is this shot might be heard?
You get your PR attention any way you can. The 125 are correct but they are still thinking the issue is one of science. It is not and never has been it is and always has been political and economic power stemming from faith and ideology.