Climate Scientists declare the climate “emergency” is at an end

News release from the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel)

Climate scientists have issued a shock declaration that the “climate emergency” is over.

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organized by the Czech division of the international Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), which took place on November 12-13 in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague, “declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary ‘climate emergency’ is at an end”.

The communiqué, drafted by the eminent scientists and researchers who spoke at the conference, makes clear that for several decades climate scientists have systematically exaggerated the influence of CO₂ on global temperature.

The high-level scientific conference also declared:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.”

The declaration supports the conclusions of the major Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC [presented to the Conference by Marcel Crok, Clintel’s co-founder].

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

Finally, the conference “calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion”.

The full text of the communiqué follows:

The International Scientific Conference of the Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel), in the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic in Prague assembled on the Twelfth and Thirteenth Days of November 2024, has resolved and now declares as follows, that is to say –

The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.
Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
Climate models are inherently incapable of telling us anything about how much global warming there will be or about whether or to what extent the warming has a natural or anthropogenic cause.
Global warming will likely continue to be slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial.
There is broad agreement among the scientific community that extreme weather events have not increased in frequency, intensity or duration and are in future unlikely to do so.
Though global population has increased fourfold over the past century, annually averaged deaths attributable to any climate-related or weather-related event have declined by 99%.
Global climate-related financial losses, expressed as a percentage of global annual gross domestic product, have declined and continue to decline notwithstanding the increase in built infrastructure in harm’s way.
Despite trillions of dollars spent chiefly in Western countries on emissions abatement, global temperature has continued to rise since 1990.
Even if all nations, rather than chiefly western nations, were to move directly and together from the current trajectory to net zero emissions by the official target year of 2050, the global warming prevented by that year would be no more than 0.05 to 0.1 Celsius.
If the Czech Republic, the host of this conference, were to move directly to net zero emissions by 2050, it would prevent only 1/4000 of a degree of warming by that target date.
Based pro rata on the estimate by the UK national grid authority that preparing the grid for net zero would cost $3.8 trillion (the only such estimate that is properly-costed), and on the fact that the grid accounts for 25% of UK emissions, and that UK emissions account for 0.8% of global emissions, the global cost of attaining net zero would approach $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ global annual GDP.
On any grid where the installed nameplate capacity of wind and solar power exceeds the mean demand on that grid, adding any further wind or solar power will barely reduce grid CO₂ emissions but will greatly increase the cost of electricity and yet will reduce the revenues earned by both new and existing wind and solar generators.
The resources of techno-metals required to achieve global net zero emissions are entirely insufficient even for one 15-year generation of net zero infrastructure, so that net zero is in practice unattainable.
Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.

Therefore, this conference hereby declares and affirms that the imagined and imaginary “climate emergency” is at an end.

This conference calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative on climate change and instead to encourage once again the long and noble tradition of free, open and uncensored scientific research, investigation, publication and discussion.

Given under our signs manual this Thirteenth Day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-Four.

Pavel Kalenda, Czech Republic [Conference Chairman]

Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands [Co-founder, Clintel]

Marcel Crok, The Netherlands [Co-founder, Clintel]

Lord Monckton, United Kingdom

Valentina Zharkova, United Kingdom

Milan Šálek, Czech Republic

Václav Procházka, Czech Republic

Gregory Wrightstone, United States (see below)

Jan Pokorný, Czech Republic

Szarka László, Hungary

James Croll, United Kingdom

Tomas Furst, Czech Republic

Gerald Ratzer, Canada

Douglas Pollock, Chile

Henri Masson, Belgium

Miroslav Žáček, Czech Republic

Jan-Erik Solheim, Norway

Video below from interview with Gregory Wrightstone.

Better to turn around halfway, than to get lost completely

Not climate change but climate policy is the main threat for the prosperity of western societies at this moment. The Clintel Foundation has stated, with a global network of 2000 scientists and experts, that there is no climate emergency. Western leaders, however, have all voted in favour of Net Zero targets for 2050, which will have a disastrous effect on our economy and therefore our prosperity. Meanwhile, the UN is increasing its effort to fight ‘disinformation’, which in practice means less open debate and more censoring of alternative views.

Climate policies are a threat for entrepreneurs and it enters deeper and deeper into the private life of citizens. Wind turbines of close to 300 meters in height industrialise our countrysides, harming the environment,, biodiversity and public health. House owners are forced to replace their gas heaters by costly heat pumps, leading to rising energy bills. More and more cities reduce speed limits to 30 kms per hour.

There is no support base among the population for all these costly measures but our political leaders so far ignore these objections. Sooner or later the tide will turn, because these policies are unfeasible and unaffordable. Clintel wants to speed up this process by making both citizens and political leaders aware of all the pitfalls. Clintel receives no funding from the government nor from the Postcode Lottery or the industry. We therefore ask citizens and small businesses to support us in our mission.

Your support will be used to:

* Explain in all details there is no climate emergency. No one should be afraid of climate change. We use our websites and social media channels to spread this information and also give interviews in the media.

* Analyse and criticize IPCC reports. We check them for alarmism and one-sidedness. In 2023 we published the book The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. We confront the IPCC with our results and will force them to respond to our criticism.

* Raise awareness for the negative side-effects of the current climate policies, both in terms of cost and impact on humans and the environment.

* Intervene in high profile climate court cases such as the one between Friends of the Earth and Shell in The Netherlands. Climate policy should be discussed in Parliaments, not in the courts.

If you share our views, please consider to support us through a (monthly) donation or by becoming Friend of Clintel.

Related Topics:#CLINTEL #GregoryWrightstone #NetZero ClimateEmergencyIsOver ClimateIntelligenceGroup GeraldRatzer

Up Next

G20’s Online Speech Clampdown Calls Set To Ignite Free Speech Fears

Don't Miss

The West Is Playing With Fire In Ukraine

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘You Have No Idea What You Have Unleashed’: Erika Kirk Addresses Supporters For First Time Since Kirk’s Assassination

Crime / 33 mins ago

Former NYPD Inspector Shares What Family Of Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Feared Before Turning Him In

International / 11 hours ago

Charlie Kirk Shooting Suspect Revealed: Here’s What His Ammunition Said

Environment

Evidence does not support ‘climate crisis’ claims

Published on September 3, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The federal Liberal government “committed over $160 billion… to support our green economy” from 2015 to 2024, and proposes to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, all on the premise that there’s a climate change crisis. And it’s spent many millions trying to convince Canadians there’s a climate emergency. But is that true?

A recent report (authored by John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer) and disseminated by the U.S. Department of Energy provides a very different view.

The report examined how carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions (as a result of human activity) have affected or will affect climate, extreme weather and other metrics of societal wellbeing. While the report examines the United States, other research suggests what most people intuitively know—because Canada’s climate is colder, global warming could produce higher benefits and lower costs for Canada than the U.S. For example, Canada’s agriculture and tourism industries would likely benefit from warmer temperatures.

So what does the report say? One observation is that “most extreme weather events in the U.S. do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.” Moreover, “forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity.” The same could be said in Canada. There’s good evidence that bad government management of forests—rather than primarily climate change—is to blame for much of the recent wildfire activity.

The authors of the report further emphasize that claims of human activity causing climate disasters are shaky: “Attribution of climate change or extreme weather events to human CO2 emissions is challenged by natural climate variability, data limitations, and inherent model deficiencies.”

A separate article in Regulation Magazine by policy analyst David Kemp makes the same point. Kemp notes that according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), even under an implausible worst-case climate change scenario, it would not be until 2050 to 2100 that heavy rain increases to a point where a real upward trend, beyond what would be considered natural statistical noise, would emerge. For droughts, cyclones, severe storms, river floods, landslides and fire weather, it would take until at least 2100.

The Department of Energy report also finds that “global climate models generally run ‘hot’ in their description of the climate of the past few decades—too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower- and mid-troposphere.” In general, therefore, many projections of future global warming and associated economic damages are “exaggerated.”

In the final chapter of their report, the authors conclude government actions in the U.S., including aggressive regulatory measures, “are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.”

In Canada, government policies would have only a fraction of the “undetectably small” impacts U.S. government policies could have on climate. As of 2022, Canada accounted for only 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, with emissions from China (19.2 times higher) and the U.S. (8.4 times higher) much higher than emissions from Canada. That’s unsurprising given Canada’s much smaller population and economy.

When federal politicians or climate activists next claim there’s a climate crisis or climate emergency, or that the latest weather disaster was the result of climate change due to human activity, and that government must take significant and costly measures to reduce climate change, Canadians should be skeptical. The evidence simply does not support such claims.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

U.S. rejection of climate-alarmed worldview has massive implications for Canada

Published on August 27, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The United States Department of Energy recently published a report, which essentially summarizes the U.S. government’s rejection of the 30-year-old, United Nations-centric, climate-alarmed consensus worldview.

In short, the report rejects the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2)—manmade or otherwise—constitutes a traditional pollutant—that is, a substance which is out of its natural role/place in the environment, and is causing harm. Rather, according to the report, CO2 is more properly seen as a fertilizer: manmade CO2 additions to the atmosphere do take the “carbon” out of a natural reservoir and put it into the air, but the effect is not toxic nor harmful. Rather, additional CO2 stimulates plant growth around the world, causing a well-documented phenomenon of “global greening.”

The report also disputes predictions that human emissions of CO2 (or other greenhouse gases) will result in dangerous climate warming or other dangerous knock-on effects such as changes to extreme weather of various sorts (floods, droughts, storms, wildfires). Such claims, the report holds, are exaggerated.

The report also, not surprisingly, diverges from the UN-climate-alarmed consensus idea that the solution to climate change risk is global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission suppression. Rather, when it comes to policy, the report comes down firmly on the idea of adaptation to potential climate disruptions, regardless of cause: “Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems” have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defences and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. Further, heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning (which relies on a robust economy) and the availability of affordable energy. “U.S. mortality risks… even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses.”

What does this mean for Canada?

First, one must assume that it portends a continued U.S. movement away from GHG mitigation efforts and programs involving direct emission suppression from sources such as power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, commercial and residential buildings, and so forth.

It will also likely mean less intrusive efforts to suppress GHG emissions indirectly with various energy efficiency standards, agricultural practices and the mandated replacement of GHG-emission power production with lower/less-GHG emitting wind and solar technologies. Oh, and once again, the much-ballyhooed transition from internal combustion transportation to electric vehicles is likely to take it in the neck, at least in the U.S. for the next four years.

Again, what does this mean for Canada? In a nutshell, it means the U.S. will cut a fairly large amount of spending on GHG suppression measures while Canada (Carney government, et al) plans to increase such spending. And the U.S. will also cut spending—and consumer costs—for electric vehicles while Canada will increase both. Because virtually all of the U.S. focus is about lowering the costs of energy and the technologies that use it—and energy is the foundational input of developed economies—all of that will likely make the U.S. more economically competitive, from the individual to the firm, compared to Canada.

The more Canada elbows up and doubles down on joining the UN’s GHG-suppression regime, the less competitive Canada will make itself compared to the U.S., which—Trump’s tariffs and current politics notwithstanding—remains the most relevant touchstone for whether or not Canadian policies are economically rational.