An open letter to the U.N from climate skeptics

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rick Bradford

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.

nevket240

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.

clipe

Bravo!
Let the truth be spoken !

Are they asking for the IPCC to apologize and admit that their recommendations are bunk?

Louis

“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.

Patrick (adelaide)

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.

pat

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

John Bell

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.

Niff

Absolutely superb. Come on somebody, call these people “deniers”?

Lew Skannen

I agree with the sentiments but I feel we are going to a Politics Gunfight with a Science Knife.

Stuart

So nice to see actual climate scientists speak up. Thank you for posting!

r murphy

Feels like opening presents before Christmas. Are we nearing the tipping point where science trumps ideology?

kbray in california

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.

trafamadore

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.

ol;d construction worker

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.

clipe
Greg House

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?

🙂

Neville

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.

michael hart

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.

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.

Gunga Din

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.

Though this letter strikes a good cord, it will fall on deaf ears. The UN has an agenda to make national sovereignty a thing of the past. Empowered by a friendly media they can put their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la……la while they continue to use AGW as a sledgehammer toward their ends. The majority of Americans seem to be skeptics so it isn’t likely that legislative action is where the AGW agenda is advanced. It will come from the executive branch in new regs issued by various departments as well as executive orders straight from the president, which by the way, will make the UN very happy.

Greg House

Gunga Din says: “But there’s no question that The UN wants their leader, whoever that may be at the time, to have political power.”
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.

David Ball

Dennis Nikols says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm
“The 125 are correct but they are still thinking the issue is one of science. ”
Have you even read Dr. Ball’s articles? I doubt it, because you would know he has been fighting on both fronts for a long, long, time.

RobertInAz

” Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?”
The IPCC is essentially part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chartered and supported by same. http://unfccc.int/2860.php.
——————–
The nice thing to see with all of the “climate scientists” on the list is signing this letter is not seen as a career limiting move.

Tom in Texas

Judith is not on the list. She would’ve been right below Walter Cunningham.

Gunga Din

Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Gunga Din says: “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….
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.

Mark and two Cats

Whether any exists or not, I’m sure evidence can be found to indict the signatories of this letter as shills for Big Oil.

RobertInAz

“is Revkin going ‘soft’ on deniers??”
My conclusion is no.
His post concludes with: “Give a read and test your cultural filters by seeing how that conclusion makes you feel.” and a link to The Cultural Cognition Project. http://www.culturalcognition.net/
The cultural filters demonstrated by the project’s selection and description of cultural filters is a bit of a hoot.
While citing the most excellent analysis of the uncertainty of cloud models discussed here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/28/clouds-and-magic/. He falls back to the tried and true precautionary principle: “Uncertainty is the reason for acting in the near term, and that uncertainty cannot be used as a justification for doing nothing.” This even with flat temperatures.

Jim Clarke

Revkin recommends that we read a paper with this as its conclusion:
“Uncertainty is the reason for acting in the near term, and that uncertainty cannot be used as a justification for doing nothing.”
Is this what passes for wisdom? I am sure the same argument was used by ancient high priests to continue human sacrifices. I cannot believe that any intelligent or sane person would argue that ignorance (uncertainty) justifies action! The only things that ignorance justifies is education and insurance. Carbon mitigation, with its zero return on investment, is not insurance.

Greg House

Jim Clarke says: “I cannot believe that any intelligent or sane person would argue that ignorance (uncertainty) justifies action!”
======================================================
An evil intelligent person would. There are quite a few around.

Greg House

Gunga Din says: “But they want a Fuehrer. CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.”
====================================================
And this should be a reason to write to an irrelevant person?

Gunga Din

RobertInAz says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm
” Why on Earth did those 125 persons choose to write to the Secretary-General of the United Nations?”
The IPCC is essentially part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chartered and supported by same. http://unfccc.int/2860.php.
——————–
The nice thing to see with all of the “climate scientists” on the list is signing this letter is not seen as a career limiting move.
==================================================================
If I misread your intent, sorry in advance.
Fear and intimidation are tools used by those not as nice as the rest of us. We read stories of a mother or a father killing their own children. We can’t imagine any parent doing such a thing. Yet a few do. There are Green Goons out there that would take pleasure or at least think it was “for the greater good” if they could get anyone who doesn’t tow the green line fired from their job or harmed in some way. I comment as “Gunga Din” for a reason. Where I work we had an envirionmental audit. I could be in less trouble if I showed up drunk than if I didn’t know where the recycle bin was. The people doing the audit were nice. But they report to someone higher up. Fortunately, such audits don’t happen often. It used to be they never happened. I do have EPA licenses for what I do and used to do. But they go back to before the EPA went “green”. The EPA then just wanted to protect the environment so it could be used by people then and for years to come. What I do is a job that, over time, became a “career”.
My name on such a list wouldn’t mean much. Wouldn’t mean anything really.
If people think that these guys are all retired and aren’t risking anything (other than the ire of Mann), there’s an “H” of alot of knowlege and experience in that list list that shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.

Gunga Din

RobertInAz says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:26 pm
==========================================================
I looked at a few of your previous comments and realized that, yes, I did misread your intend. Sorry again. Cranial density does not improve with age.

philincalifornia

Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Gunga Din says: “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….
==========================================================
He is not a leader of the UN. There is no leader there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.
————————————————————————–
Oh no. That’s why he refuses to disappear into the sunset. No no, please not Gorebbels ….
…. please say it ain’t so.

Streetcred

November 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm | trafamadore says:
—————————————————————-
Tralfamadore, if you’re trolling here for sympathy for your ” precautionary principal ” you’d be better off at the SS site. There’s nothing that mankind can do to prevent any changes in climate whether cooling or warming … Mankind is nothing more more than the proverbial ant on an elephants rump.

Robert A. Taylor

The letter has:

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction.

As a CAGW skeptic I wanted to have the exact quote from the report to use, and accessed the PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 123 is:

”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

This is under the pg 122 heading:

DO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS OVER THE PAST DECADE FALSIFY CLIMATE PREDICTIONS?

Actually there are no page numbers on those two pages, and they are highlighted with a blue background rather than the normal white.

Phillip Bratby

I can hardly wait to see this reported by the BBC. They love to report everything about the UN.

davidmhoffer

Greg House says:
November 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Gunga Din says: “But they want a Fuehrer. CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.”
====================================================
And this should be a reason to write to an irrelevant person?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The “irrelevant” person made a public statement to try and become relevant, and some other people made a public statement to try and ensure that he doesn’t become relevant. Don’t know how much easier it could be to understand….

Steve C

Congratulations to all involved: thousands of us amateurs agree, despite our lack of official “intellectual weight”. Whether shouting at the self-defined deaf has any effect is another matter, of course, given that their rationale has nothing to do with science. We might hope, too, that the FP will draw this letter to the attention of their peers and maximise its exposure.

John Wright

@Tom in Texas says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Judith is not on the list. She would’ve been right below Walter Cunningham.
I just left a word on her open thread to that effect.

RogerT

Pity they didn’t get 25 more signatures which would double number of scientists (out of 77) who are responsible for the “concensus” 🙂

mfo

Excellent letter. Well done to those who put their names to it. It’s brave to express your views about climate change openly as the NASA astronauts, scientists and engineers did recently. It demonstrates the lie about a consensus.
It shows that the vile holocaust comparison of using the term den**r is simply abuse due to a paucity of intellectual maturity on the part of CAGW activists including Mann (who should be ashamed considering his background).
As the letter relates to the UNFCCC bunfight at Doha it seems appropriate to send it to the UN Secretary General. But it is an open letter so it is naturally for everyone to see and sending it to Ban Ki-moon is more likely to get attention from the press for its main theme:
“There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.”
Ban Ki-moon will do nothing and no one expects him to. He is a pawn in the New Great Game which encompasses power structures and the CAGW scare. His ability to deal with corruption at the UN is suspect as Inga-Britt Ahlenius expressed to him in a letter in 2010.
Inga-Britt Ahlenius was a Swedish auditor and undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services charged with combating corruption at the United Nations. She wrote to Ban-Ki Moon:
“There is no transparency, there is lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the organisation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/nations2.pdf

Elizabeth

Sticky post?

Gail Combs

trafamadore says:
November 29, 2012 at 6:21 pm
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?….
________________________________________
If you want that PhD, if you want Tenure, you do not rock the CAGW boat. There are lots and lots of paper around, I have read several, that have the “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” “Although our research shows CAGW is a bunch of bunk, our research should not be used to trash CAGW because we do not want to look like we are ‘deniers’.”
So here is a list of papers that do not support CAGW although they may have that “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
The fact that the “Get out of Peer-Review Free Card” is so common should make it clear to anyone who doesn’t have their mind cemented shut that CAGW is POLITICAL and not scientific. All it takes is ONE paper to disprove a theory and yet CAGW keeps coming back like a zombie from the “Night of the Living Dead ”
“Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” ~ Thomas Huxley
16 years of no warming in the face of continued rise in CO2 is that ugly fact. There are plenty more but all have been ignored in the pursuit of $$$$.

Gail Combs

Gunga Din says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm
…..But they want a Fuehrer.
CAGW is the current excuse to empower one.
_______________________________________
The globalists even say that. Pascal Lamy is the Director General for the World Trade Organization. Twenty years ago he was Chief of Staff to the President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors.

9 November 2009: Lamy sees need for “right global governance” to meet global challenges
“The reality is that the end of the cold war caught everyone by surprise. It was the end of a bi-polar world. A new world order was being born. And yet there was not enough thinking and discussion about its governance structures. There was never a Bretton Woods Conference or a San Francisco Conference post 1989. As a result global governance structures did not adjust. And here lies the root of many of today’s problems. Global challenges need global solutions and these can only come with the right global governance, which today, twenty years later, remains too weak.” …he said:
” …the world is in a state of serious distress. We are in the midst of the worst ever economic crisis and the first to have a global reach. A crisis which has seen a decimation of employment. We are seeing our planet deteriorate due to global warming. With severe droughts and violent floods. With entire islands disappearing under water….”
…What do I mean by global governance? For me global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common purpose in a sustainable manner, that is, with equity and justice…
…governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.
It also needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change. Ownership to prevent the in-built bias towards resistance to modify the status quo.….

CAGW and the economic crash were ENGINEERED to provide legitimacy for ‘global governance.’
Just in case you do not think that national sovereignty is the target. Lamy is quite blunt in stating he thinks national sovereignty is passé. He holds the EU up as the direction the world should go. … on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law…
And he restates it here:

…more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now….
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8216

And again here:

…Yet, with the world becoming ever more interconnected and challenges become truly global, governance remains to a large extent local. The discrepancy between the reality of today’s interdependence, the challenges resulting from it, and the capacity of governments to agree politically on how to deal with them is striking.
For the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today. In the absence of a truly global government, global governance results from the action of sovereign States. It is inter-national. Between nations. In other words, global governance is the globalization of local governance.
But it does not suffice to establish informal groupings or specialized international organizations, each of them being “Member driven”, to ensure a coherent and efficient approach to address the global problems of our time. In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations….
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl220_e.htm