500 Scientists Write U.N.: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'

500 Scientists Write U.N.: 'There Is No Climate Emergency'

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific," the declaration states. "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.


Video: We Need to Eat the Babies – Climate Activist at AOC Meeting

"Man-made global warming". Fact or fiction?

Courtesy of a 2013 post titled 10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!) by James Corbett of The Corbett Report:

Myth #1. The earth is warming!

On what time scale? 16 years? 2000 years? 10000 years? 420000 years? 65 million years? (Answer: None of the above)

Myth #2. This year was the hottest year ever!

Was that before or after NASA and the NOAA altered the temperature record to make recent years warmer?

Myth #3. 97% of scientists agree on global warming!

You mean 97% of 77 scientists in an unscientific online poll?

Myth #4. Sea levels are rising!

Yes…at a rate of 7 inches per century.

Myth #5. Hurricanes are increasing!

US landfalling hurricanes are at their lowest intensity in a century.
(Bonus fact: Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at a 30 year low!)

Myth #6. But…polar bears!

The polar bear population has quintupled in six decades and the USGS admits their numbers are near "historic highs."

Myth #7. Climategate was hype and it's been debunked.

The UK Information Commissioner found the climategate scientists guilty of breaking the law by hiding data from the public.

Myth #8. Models project a temperature increase of over 2 degrees in this century.

And these same models overestimated warming over the past 15 years by 400%.

Myth #9. Weather is not climate.

Actually, yes. And this is true when it's hot outside, too.

Myth #10. Climate denial is a well-funded conspiracy.

Actually, the reverse. The global warming industry has generated over
$140 billion in government grants, a $315 billion carbon market and is expected to generate 10s of trillions more in government-sponsored investment in the coming decades.

Global warming is a pristine example of the 'problem, reaction, solution' (Hegelian dialectic) tactic that is employed again and again by governments and their overlords in order to keep the populaces in check and pliable. In this scenario there is a hidden agenda which, on its own merits, is unlikely to be accepted by the public. In order to sell the solution to the public, a problem, often with a fear component, is required which will invoke the anticipated reaction. The problem may be real or conjured. The public reaction will be to demand a solution from their government which then allows the agenda to be carried out.

I recently had a chat with a friend of mine about man-made global warming and his views were quite mainstream and predictable. Not only did he feel that human induced global warming is a sound and scientifically proven threat that must be addressed immediately, he went so far as to suggest that it was acceptable for the government to misrepresent the problem as long as the problem is solved.

While i understand this kind of reasoning and appreciate the passion of environmental activists, such views are topical and dangerous. First of all, government isn't the business of solving problems (quite the opposite), and secondly, in the case of human impact upon our environment, the real problems are not being seriously addressed and therefore little or nothing is being done to solve them. The public at large often isn't aware of the real problems because the media doesn't discuss them and they don't bother to do any serious research on their own. All they know is what they are fed by the media and the big tech companies and in the case of global warming, even a large portion of the alternative media gets it wrong.

The formerly trendy term, "global warming", is no longer as trendy as it once was. It's been swapped out by most of the media in favor of the more arbitrary "climate change", which of course is all the climate has ever done and will ever do. Why the switcheroo in terms?

The earths climate does not appear to have warmed for the last two decades or so. This was evidenced at least as far back as 2009 when a massive amount of data was leaked to the public from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Phil Jones, the former director of the IPCC, was "disappointed" by the apparent lack of warming. Jones, former Professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, went so far as to hide data from the public which may have led to 'Climategate' and the email leak and which seriously jeopardized the integrity of the IPCC, as it should have, and forced Phil Jones to step down while an inquiry took place.

The University of East Anglia broke the law when dealing with requests for climate data, according to the UK Information Commissioner's Office.

A statement from the office says emails leaked or stolen from the university's Climatic Research Unit reveal that Freedom of Information requests "were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation".

The vast amount of CO2 in our environment is produced by rotting organic matter and our oceans. What we humans produce is trivial and most creditable climate scientists seem to agree that the tiny amount of CO2 produced by humans is not and cannot affect global temperature. Furthermore, when one looks at the data, it is apparent that temperature increase precedes the increase of CO2, though climate alarmists claim the opposite is true.

"The only place in the world where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase… the only place in the world where that happens is in the IPCC computer models." — Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D., in his interview with James Corbett, 15-Dec-2014.

The primary driver of the earths temperature is our star. The distance from the earth to our sun is not fixed, nor is its solar activity, and this has a massive impact on the temperature here on earth. If you move an object closer or further from a heat source, does it's temperature not change, just as it has been changing on the moon and mars? Oh, wait! Sorry, i forgot; the change in the temperature of the Moon resulted from us walking on it. Yes, one explanation fed to the public is that footprints and rover tracks have caused a temperature increase on the moon.

Solar activity relative to temperature
From the 'Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research', Global Warming Petition Project

It is the Club of Rome and David Rockefeller that has done much to sell the climate hysteria agenda. This organization, founded in 1968 at Rockefeller's estate in Ballagio, Italy, is hugely important and influential. The Club of Rome is consulted by various governments and it pushes agendas that affect the entire world, yet the public knows little or nothing about it.

Following are excerpts from an issue of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), 23-Jun-1981, titled 'The inside story of the Club of Rome' by Nancy Spannaus:

In his speech before 120 diplomats and government officials in Washington, D.C. this last week, EIR founder Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. identified the major policymaking institutions of the advanced sector as the real problem leading the world toward World War III. No one could exemplify this judgement more clearly than Alexander King, cofounder of the Club of Rome, as he described the origins and workings of that institution to EIR in Paris last month.

King's Club of Rome is not a power in its own right. Many in the United States and developing sector would hardly recognize its name. Yet the institutional connections of this elite group, which began with a mere four individuals in 1968, make it one of the central coordinating bodies for the worldwide depopulation policy which ranges from mass sterilizations, to right- and left-wing terrorism, to fomenting of Salvador-like civil wars. It is the policies formulated in the Club of Rome, on behalf of the "black noble" families of Venice and Great Britain, which are then transmitted through leading institutions such as NATO, the OECD, and governments of nations like Canada.


Gradually the policy profile becomes clearer. "Many of us felt that the nation-states of especially Western Europe were not looking at the long term, but were bound up with short-term electoral cycles, and far too traditional." The meaning of that is directly linked to the views of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose member Lloyd Cutler, then personal counsel to President Carter, wrote an article on future governments last year. Governments will increasingly be absorbed with the business of managing scarcity, Cutler said, and therefore must be cut off from the demands of the constituencies.


King is interested in promoting zero growth through the rubric of the "technetronic society," as envisioned by such madmen as Zbigniew Brzezinski and the late H. G. Wells. How does this cohere with the so-called concern for the "humanization" of science reflected in the educational reforms and King's discussion of the policy review by the Nobel Foundation in 1968? Merely that an increasingly small group of technocrats will run the increasingly smaller core of industry, manipulate the overall population through the "information" society, and leave the bulk of the world's population without access to the tool of technological development.


King's description provides the reader with a re­markably clear image of how the Club of Rome func­tions to shape the policy directions of leading institu­tions. The Club of Rome is not at all interested in wielding power as such-that makes it too direct a target of opposition. It prefers to act "as a catalyst," leaving the appearance that the student rebellions, destabilizations, and economic retrenchment programs it is fostering are "just popping up spontaneously."


The so-called academic institutions are quite reveal­ing. Key among them are IFIAS, the International Federation of Institutes of Advanced Studies, and IIA­ SA, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. These groupings, both technically oriented, are key penetrators of explicitly anti-Club of Rome governments and institutions, including especially the Soviet Union. Acting as impartial experts, their mem­bers are ruining dozens of nations, controlling interna­tional institutions like the United Nations, IMF, and World Bank, and perverting the best of scientific minds looking for a solution to underdevelopment.

As you might recall, Ronald Regan stated several times during his presidency how the people of the world might unite if faced with an alien threat. Manufacturing enemies is a staple of the Club of Rome.

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy" — The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1991, ISBN067171094X). From page 85 of the same book we find the following:

The common enemy as proposed by the Club of RomeIn searching for a new enemy to unite us, we suggested that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.

For more information about the Club of Rome, the modern environmental movement, and who is behind it, i suggest reading EIR Special Report: 'CO₂ Reduction' Is a Mass Murder Policy. From the introduction:

Read this report to learn the dark story of the modern environmentalist movement. Come to understand why the world's greatest financial powers are eagerly supporting climate hysteria. Encounter data refuting the supposed certainty of a world cataclysm facing us in a dozen years, and gain a fuller appreciation of the complexity of the Earth's climate, in the context of the mechanisms of the solar system and beyond.

And from the section titled Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multibillionaires Are Financing the 'Climate Protectors'!:

A closer look at the financing of Greta Thunberg, the Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Fridays for Future reveals that this movement is being funded by the richest people on Earth. Among the founders and periphery of the Climate Emergency Fund (CEF), are to be found Rory Kennedy, the daughter of Robert Kennedy; Aileen Getty, daughter of the late John Paul Getty; and the "philanthropist" Trevor Neilson, whose career has included various forms of collaboration with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros and Ted Turner. According to the Guardian, the CEF has already transferred 500,000 euros to XR, which will soon be followed by "ten times as much" money. Breitbart has published internal documents from XR, revealing further five- and six-figure donations by Soros, the European Climate Foundation, the Tides Foundation, and Greenpeace Furka Holdings AG, among others.

There is an excellent paper titled Report From Iron Mountain which i also suggest reading. The paper's authenticity is debatable, but like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, whether it is a fiction is irrelevant since it presents a disturbingly accurate picture of the world we live in today and why governments, economies and societies are operated as they are.

The primary purpose of the report was to answer the question of what would happen in the absence of war. The answer included the statement that a states ability to rule over its people is directly proportionate to its war-making capability. How many of those in power do you think are willing to give up that power? Do we not have a war economy?

The "man-made global warming" nonsense was fabricated as a distraction for the masses. Those with deficient analytical abilities will never see the Big Picture which includes Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, globalization, smart cities, technocracy, trans-humanism, eugenics, and think tanks like the Club of Rome and people like Bill Gates and George Soros. What do you think the Bush's and other domestic and foreign politicians and the so-called "elite" are talking about when they refer to a "New World Order"?

Video: Rosa Koire. UN Agenda 2030 exposed

Video: Carbon Eugenics

The solutions to the problems the world is facing, whether manufactured or authentic, are foisted upon the public under the guise of impending doom, or as an improvement or convenience in their lives. The true reasons however are so diametrically opposed to the propaganda that they can hardly be imagined by the masses, or are dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy theories" regardless of the fact that institutions like the Club of Rome publish their true motives in black and white for all to see should they are to look.

Is starvation, disease and the lack of basic resources in third world countries not solvable in a matter of a few months or years? Do we not already posses the technology to virtually eliminate our use of fossil fuels? Why does the education system in the U.S. rank among the worst among developed nations? Why is life expectancy falling in the U.S.? These questions have very clear answers but those answers are not shared with the public by governments or their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. Even the vast majority of the alternative media gets it wrong.

Instead of addressing the betterment and realizing the potential of the human species and the welfare of our planet, governments happily spend billions and trillions on war and environmentally destructive industry as dictated by the real powers of the world.

If governments or the hypnotized masses wanted to address a real and pressing environmental threat, they might focus instead upon the degradation of the ozone layer which appears to be caused by human produced radiation resulting from nuclear bomb testing and events like Fukushima and Chernobyl. Why doesn't the media report in depth about the ongoing, unmitigated disaster at the Daiichi nuclear power plant, or the millions of gallons of radioactive water that's been dumped in the ocean since the accident and which continues to be dumped up to the present day? Why isn't this trending on Facebook instead of meaningless memes like "storm Area 51"?

What about the environmental destruction caused by the military-industrial complex and the wars fomented by governments and financed by the international banking cartel? Why are the root causes of this not seriously addressed on 60 Minutes or NPR or PBS?

From an article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky titled, Global Warming and the Ozone Layer: What's More Dangerous, CO2 or Nuclear War?:

The Impact of Radioactivity on Climate

Are increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuel the only cause of climate change and environmental degradation?

In this article, we focus briefly on the impacts on the Ozone Layer resulting from the explosion of nuclear bombs, an issue which has not been addressed by the New Green Deal, as well as radiation from nuclear power plants.

Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants (Fukushima)

The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination.

In this regard, since 2011, amply documented, marine life as well as species loss has been affected by the release of radioactive plutonium into the Pacific Ocean following the Fukushima-Daichi disaster.

Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California.

Nuclear Testing and Radioactive Fallout

The testing of nuclear weapons has been ongoing throughout the post WWII era. Among the more than 2000 tests, a large number of these tests are "not underground" or "underwater", i.e the testing in the atmosphere.


The nitric oxides produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the Northern Hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent. Such a depletion might produce changes in the Earth's climate, and would allow more ultraviolet radiation from the sun through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth, where it could produce dangerous burns and a variety of potentially dangerous ecological effects.

It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power. […]

The 2008 Simulation of Nuclear Conflict. Impacts on Ozone Layer

In a major 2008 study by Michael Mills et al entitled Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict (Academy of Sciences of the United States) a simulation was conducted (largely based on the concepts outlined in the TTPS 1983 study) of a nuclear conflict involving 100 Hiroshima sized bombs. The simulation confirmed that the nuclear explosions "could produce long-term damage to the ozone layer, enabling higher than "extreme" levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth's surface, (see GSN, March 16, 2010).


Those concerns have largely been excluded from the Climate Debate and the Extinction Rebellion.

The Extinction Rebellion Protest Movement has its eyes riveted on the rising emissions of Carbon Dioxide (from fossil fuel), heralded as "the most dangerous and prevalent greenhouse gas".

All other variables are excluded. Scientific lies by omission.

Children are being exploited and turned into unwitting political whores for the uneducated masses to dote over while the Big Picture remains well outside the narrow field of view projected by our televisions and radios and governments and corporate controlled social media platforms.

Pedophrasty: "Argument involving children to prop up a rationalization and make the opponent look like an asshole, as people are defenseless and suspend all skepticism in front of suffering children: nobody has the heart to question the authenticity or source of the reporting. Often done with the aid of pictures."

Video: Top 10 Reasons Why Greta Thunberg Is a Fraud – Red Ice TV

Video: Greta "i see carbon dioxide" Thunberg without a script: stumped when asked what her message is

Exploiting uneducated, indoctrinated and, in the case of 16 year old Greta Thunberg, a mentally ill actress born into a family of actors, is not only patently unethical, it is pure psychological warfare designed specifically to tug on the heart strings of the gullible masses. Several people see this kind of exploitation as child abuse. This kind of deceitful and despicable propaganda utilizes animals to the same effect.

Video: Won't Someone Think of the Polar Bears?!? – Corbett Report

There are 31,000+ actual scientists with backgrounds and/or interests in climatology that have signed the following petition on the Global Warming Petition Project website. Why are they ignored?

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

I would encourage readers to review the Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research on the Global Warming Petition Project website.

More recently, 500 scientists have written to the UN to tell the body that "there is no climate emergency".

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.

If you want to understand why the data that the IPCC and other corporate and government funded institutions uses is heavily biased and outright wrong, visit the Real Climate Science and The Corbett Report websites.

In the following video, Tony Heller of Real Climate Science breaks down how climate data has been manipulated in order to fit a predetermined result.

Video: Data Tampering Complete : Mission Accomplished! (mirror)

The latest version of NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network, is the crowning achievement of a decades long effort to rewrite Earth's history and hide the heat of the past.

"Man-made global warming" is a huge cash cow for the people pushing it. From the article, Al Gore Made Nearly $200 Million from the Global Warming Scam — Likely to Become the World's First 'Carbon Billionaire':

Ten years after the release of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, none of the film's dire climate change predictions have come to pass.

However, in the decade since the documentary was produced, its creator has raked in millions of dollars from the entire "global warming" scam, and is now poised to become "our first carbon billionaire."

In the 2006 film, Gore made a number of wild claims regarding what we could expect to see happening over the next few years due to global warming, but virtually all of his alarmist prognostications have turned out to be false.


"Gore's wealth went from $700,000 in 2000 to an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015 thanks to his environmentalist activism. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded. By 2008, Gore was able to put a whopping $35 million into hedge funds and other investments."

Yes, we are facing serious environmental problems and yes, these problems must be addressed sooner rather than later, but the think tanks and governments and billionaires that are peddling many of the the solutions are not serious people and are not interested in solving them. They have other plans. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it".

Video: George Carlin – The big club

"Man-made global warming" is a politicized, fictionalized and monetized side show tossed into the invisibly barred cages for the masses to argue over. It keeps them occupied while the real agendas are played out unnoticed except by those very few who are willing to take the time to do real research and who are endowed with an attention span which exceeds that of a goldfish.

Further reading:


Climate Disruption: It's Not Due to CO2 – Global Research

Climate Disruption: It's Not Due to CO2 – Global Research

The IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, the Rockefellers, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. And they found, I think it was an analysis by William Engdahl, who said they found or invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined which is humanity itself.


The climate non-crisis crisis

The catalyst for this post was the article, The 97% consensus on global warming on Skeptical Science.

We are told that human produced greenhouse gasses will inevitably lead to climate catastrophe; that we are doomed unless change our ways immediately; that there is a consensus among the worlds climate scientists.

Except it's all bullshit. Or at least much of it is.

As anyone who has studied government and politics knows, there is almost always a hidden agenda behind the rhetoric and fear is often the emotion that is played upon in order to achieve the goal. It's the ol' 'problem reaction solution' tactic that is employed again and again where the problem is invented, the reaction is anticipated, and the solution was contrived long before the problem was. The so-called war on terror is an excellent example.

As of this writing, 31,487 scientists in the U.S. have signed the following petition:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

James Corbett has done much research into the global warming/climate change subject and in his work you will find a plethora of resources from which he has derived his opinions and conclusions. Much of his work on the subject can be found on his website, The Corbett Report. Here are a few examples:

10 Climate Myths Debunked (in 60 seconds!)

Climate Change is Unfalsifiable Woo-Woo Pseudoscience

Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

Geoengineering: The real climate change threat

Lies, Damned Lies, and Global Warming Statistics

Orwell's Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

The Global Warming Pause Explained

Episode 282 – The IPCC Exposed

Why Would People Lie About Climate Change? – Questions For Corbett #033

Won't Someone Think of the Polar Bears?!?