Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is “No Climate Emergency”

NOTE: Undoubtedly, the political Left across the Globe has decided to declare that we have not just Climate Change issues but also a “Climate Emergency.” We’ve seen the likes of former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State John Kerry build their professional lives around Climate issues. Both are sold out to their “cause.” And both are basking in millions of dollars that they receive for telling this story to a fawning and fearful world full of Climate “activists.” These “activists” are nothing more than horrified citizens of multiple countries who are buying the wares these two and others are peddling.
How can these two American ex-politicians get away with the perpetuation of something they claim is proven science when it’s not?
I promised that we at TruthNewsNetwork would provide factual information about the fraud of “Climate Change,” i.e., “Climate Emergency.” Today you can read Part One of a very transparent compilation of “facts” that disprove the “Fraud of Climate Emergency.”
Make no mistake: anyone who uses this fraud for material gain is nothing more than a 1950s carnival barker selling colored water as a miracle elixir that works on every little pain!
There’s no climate emergency. And the alarmist messaging pushed by global elites is purely political. That’s what 1,808 scientists and informed professionals stated when they signed the Global Climate Intelligence Group’s “World Climate Declaration.”

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration begins. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

The group is an independent “climate watchdog” founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. According to the group’s website, its objective is to “generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.” And it does so by objectively looking at the facts and engaging in scientific research into climate change and climate policy.

The declaration’s signatories include Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, meteorologists, professors, and environmental scientists worldwide. And when a select few were asked by The Epoch Times why they signed the declaration stating that the “climate emergency” is a farce, they all stated a variation of “because it’s true.”

“I signed the declaration because I believe the climate is no longer studied scientifically. Rather, it has become an item of faith,” Haym Benaroya, a distinguished professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Rutgers University, told The Epoch Times.
“The earth has warmed about 2 degrees F since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, but that hardly constitutes an emergency—or even a crisis—since the planet has been warmer yet over the last few millennia,” Ralph Alexander, a retired physicist and author of the website “Science Under Attack,” told The Epoch Times.

“There is plenty of evidence that average temperatures were higher during the so-called Medieval Warm Period (centered around the year 1000), the Roman Warm Period (when grapes and citrus fruits were grown in now much colder Britain), and in the early Holocene (after the last regular Ice Age ended).”

The climate emergency is “fiction,” he said unequivocally. There were 1,609 scientists and informed professionals who signed the Global Climate Intelligence Group’s “World Climate Declaration.” (The Epoch Times)

The ‘Climate Emergency’

Human activities and the resulting greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Specifically, the IPCC says that in 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations were 280 parts per million (ppm), and today, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 420 ppm, which affects temperature.

The IPCC is the U.N. body for assessing the “science related to climate change.” It was created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Programme to help policymakers develop climate policies.

Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, said that one of the IPCC’s central theories is that natural CO2 has stayed constant at 280 ppm since 1750 and that human CO2 is responsible for the 140 ppm increase.

This IPCC theory makes human CO2 responsible for 33 percent of today’s total CO2 level, he told The Epoch Times.

Consequently, to decrease temperatures, the IPCC says, we must reduce human-caused CO2—thus, the current push by lawmakers and climate activists to forcibly transition the world’s transportation to electric vehicles, get rid of fossil fuels, and generally reduce all activities that contribute to human-caused CO2.

That entire premise, according to Mr. Berry, is problematic.

“The public perception of carbon dioxide is that it goes into the atmosphere and stays there,” Mr. Berry said. “They think it just accumulates. But it doesn’t.”

He explained that when you look at the flow of carbon dioxide –“flow” meaning the carbon moving from one carbon reservoir to another, i.e., through photosynthesis, the eating of plants, and back out through respiration — a 140 ppm constant level requires a continual inflow of 40 ppm per year of carbon dioxide, because, according to the IPCC, carbon dioxide has a turnover time of 3.5 years (meaning carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for about 3 1/2 years).

“A level of 280 ppm is twice that 80 ppm of inflow. Now, we’re saying that the inflow of human carbon dioxide is one-third of the total. Even IPCC data says, ‘No, human carbon dioxide inflow is about 5 percent to 7 percent of the total carbon dioxide inflow into the atmosphere,'” he said.

So, to make up for the lack of necessary human-caused carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere, the IPCC claims that instead of having a turnover time of 3.5 years, human CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years.

“[The IPCC is] saying that something is different about human carbon dioxide and that it can’t flow as fast out of the atmosphere as natural carbon dioxide,” Mr. Berry said. “Well, IPCC scientists — when they’ve gone through, what, billions of dollars? — should have asked a simple question: ‘Is a human carbon dioxide molecule exactly identical to a natural carbon dioxide molecule?’ And the answer is yes. Of course!

“Well, if human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, their outflow times must be identical. So, the whole idea where they say it’s in there for hundreds, or thousands, of years, is wrong.”

(Courtesy of Edwin Berry)

Mr. Berry said that means nature — not humans — caused the increase in CO2. And consequently, attempts to decrease human CO2 are pointless.

“The belief that human CO2 drives the CO2 increase may be the biggest public delusion and most costly fraud in history,” Mr. Berry said.

He pointed out that in science, the scientific method says that you can’t prove that a theory is 100 percent true — only that the data supports it — but you can prove that it’s false. Providing an example, Mr. Berry said that Sir Isaac Newton’s gravity law was the preeminent theory for a long time, but then Albert Einstein made a correction that disproved Newton’s theory.

Smoke rises from a steel factory in Inner Mongolia, China, on Nov. 3, 2016. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

“Go back to the scientific method: IPCC proposed a theory, and if we can prove it’s wrong, we win. And I proved, in that case, their theory is wrong,” he said.

Mr. Berry took his research a step further and calculated the human carbon cycle using the IPCC’s own carbon cycle data.

“The prediction from the same model doesn’t give humans producing 140 ppm. It comes out closer to 30 ppm. Which essentially means the IPCC is wrong,” he said.

He said that using the IPCC’s data, nature is responsible for about 390 ppm of CO2, and humans are only responsible for about 30 ppm—not 140 ppm.

“Now, someone could ask, ‘Well, is the IPCC data correct?’ My answer is, ‘I don’t know.’ But I don’t have to know because IPCC has used this very data to deceive the world. I want to show that their logic is incorrect using their data,” he said.

“The IPCC was not set up as a scientific organization.”

Mr. Berry said that the IPCC doesn’t engage in skepticism of its theories and, therefore, the scientific method that governs all science.

“They were set up as a political organization to convince the public that carbon dioxide was causing problems specifically,” he said.

When asked why there’s a push to declare a “climate emergency,” Mr. Berry said it’s all about money and control.

“That’s the only real reason for it. There’s no climate emergency,” he said.

Mr. Berry makes all his research and research and correspondence from colleagues trying to disprove his theories available to the public.

Politics and Climate Models

Like Mr. Berry, Mr. Alexander says that science has become more political than scientific.

“It’s simply not true that the Earth’s climate is threatened. That claim is far more political than scientific,” he said.

“Science is based on observational evidence, together with logic, to make sense of the evidence. Very little, if any, evidence exists that human emissions of CO2 cause rising temperatures. There is a correlation between the two, but the correlation isn’t particularly strong: The Earth cooled, for example, from about 1940 to 1970, while the atmospheric CO2 level continued to go up. Computer climate models are all that connects global warming to CO2.”

When asked why CO2 was singled out as the cause of the climate emergency, Mr. Alexander said it goes back to James Hansen, an astrophysicist and the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies from 1981 to 2013 and an ardent environmentalist.

“Hansen developed one of the first computer climate models and began to make highly exaggerated predictions of future warming, none of which have come true,” Mr. Alexander said. “This included testimony he gave at a 1986 Senate hearing, testimony considered to have sparked the subsequent anthropogenic global warming narrative.”

Vice President Kamala Harris looks at a hyperwall during a climate change discussion at the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., on Nov. 5, 2021. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Despite his predictions failing to come to fruition, Mr. Hansen’s efforts contributed to the founding of the IPCC, Mr. Alexander said.

“Although ostensibly the IPCC is a scientific body, the findings of its scientists are frequently distorted and hyped by the government and NGO bureaucrats who dominate the organization,” he said. “The bureaucrats have played a major role in exaggerating the scientific conclusions of successive IPCC reports and escalating the rhetoric of its official pronouncements. Hence, the U.N. secretary-general’s recent proclamations about a ‘boiling’ earth.”

(Science Under Attack)
(Science Under Attack)
On July 27, Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning. The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived. The air is unbreathable. The heat is unbearable. And the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable.”

Mr. Alexander said an honest answer to what’s causing Earth’s warming is, “We just don’t know right now,” but that doesn’t mean scientists are short of ideas.

“The chances of CO2 being the number one culprit are very slim. CO2 undoubtedly contributes, but there are several natural cycles that most likely do, too,” he said. “These include solar variability and ocean cycles, both ignored in climate models—because we don’t know how to incorporate them—or represented poorly. While climate activists will tell you otherwise, climate science is still in its infancy, and there is a great deal we don’t yet understand about our climate.”

He said one example is a recent research paper that estimated that changes in the sun’s output could explain 70 to 80 percent of global warming. Research such as that doesn’t gain much traction because the IPCC is committed to the idea that human CO2 is the cause of global warming.

As further criticism, Mr. Alexander said John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Center, has clearly demonstrated that climate models exaggerate short-term future warming by two to three times.
They started their project in 1989, analyzed data going back to 1979, and found that, in general, since 1979, the Earth’s temperature has increased steadily by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit every 10 years, according to global satellite data, Mr. Spencer said on his website.

As for why climate models are so inaccurate, Mr. Alexander said: “Computer simulations are only as reliable as the assumptions that the computer model is built on, and there are many assumptions that go into climate models. Assumptions about processes we don’t fully understand require approximations.

“All these large-scale and small-scale approximations are incorporated in the model in the form of adjustable numerical parameters — often termed ‘fudge factors’ by scientists and engineers. The famous mathematician John von Neumann once said, ‘With four [adjustable] parameters, I can fit an elephant, and with five, I can make him wiggle his trunk.'”

Mr. Neumann’s saying means that people shouldn’t be impressed when a complex model fits a data set because, with enough parameters, you can fit any data set.

Mr. Benaroya echoed Mr. Alexander’s criticism but took it further regarding climate modeling.

“All climate model predictions have been wrong,” Mr. Benaroya told The Epoch Times. “It is important to understand that a computational model of the atmosphere is inherently inaccurate. This is not the fault of the researchers.

“It is due to the enormous complexity of the climate—chemistry; fluid mechanics; heat transfer; effects of solar radiation; effects of the Earth; the modeling of the oceans, which can hold tremendous amounts of heat; and the effects of the clouds. No mathematical model put in a form to be analyzed by a computer can account for all these effects. Many of these effects are not fully understood. Also not understood is how these effects are coupled to each other.”

A supercomputer at the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ) in Hamburg, Germany, on June 7, 2017. The DKRZ provides high performance computing and associated services for climate research institutes in the country. (Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images)
A supercomputer at the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ) in Hamburg, Germany, on June 7, 2017. The DKRZ provides high-performance computing and associated services for climate research institutes in the country. (Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images)

Mr. Benaroya said that in addition to not fully understanding the complexity of the climate, what data is available is incomplete or, in some cases, manipulated to fit a narrative.

“There have been several reports about the rigging of the data to assure outcomes that point to the coming climate disaster,” he said. “All the predictions have been wrong. I want the climate to be nonpolitical in science. Policies should be based on science. Policies is where the politics come in, not the facts.”

(Rutgers University)

As for why there’s a push to declare a “climate emergency,” Mr. Benaroya said it’s about “power and money, but also larger political forces.”

“[Some] may hate big industry, big oil, and technology. Maybe some hate the West or capitalism. All these likely play a role,” he said.

Mr. Alexander agreed that it’s about power and money.

“In the beginning, the key phrase was simply ‘global warming.’ When that aroused little interest, someone came up with the clever idea of substituting the phrase ‘climate change,’ which was highly effective for a while since the Earth’s climate is constantly changing regardless of what the temperature is doing,” he said.

“Then, when nonbelievers began to ignore the message again, the mantra became ‘climate crisis.’ That escalated into the current ‘climate emergency,’ hoping that the term ’emergency’ would actually stir people into action and persuade them to back net-zero CO2 and other measures.

“Another element is the far left’s desire to overthrow the whole capitalist system, which they regard as evil and the source of all society’s problems. For them, a climate crisis or emergency is a convenient vehicle to achieve their aims.”

As for the United Nations’ push for net-zero CO2 by 2050, Mr. Alexander said: “It’s a complete waste of time and resources and may well impoverish many Western economies. China and India are not playing along in any case, which makes the whole effort meaningless.”

World leaders and delegates gather at a summit to address climate change, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on Sept. 23, 2019. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Part Two Of This Story Will Be Published Tomorrow (October 13, 2023) at

1 thought on “Meteorologists, Scientists Explain Why There Is “No Climate Emergency””

  1. Can’t imagine what the schools are teaching that anyone can believe such nonsense in the first place. At age 13, that is, graduated from 8th grade, could have told you there was no climate emergency and moreover, that if there had been, there was nothing to be done about it by way of correction.

    Yet, there are the public schools with hands out for more money every year. I’m not talking about budgeting. I’m talking about bond questions at least once every two years. Like clockwork, like budgets are meaningless. Yet they produce students who actually believe this kind of crap.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.