Press release by the Climate Intelligence Group (CLINTEL)

The Chamber of Deputies in session

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

A two-day climate conference in Prague, organised 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 –

1. 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.
2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual.
6. 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.
7. Global warming will likely continue to be slow, small, harmless and net-beneficial.
8. 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.
9. 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%.
10. 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.
11. Despite trillions of dollars spent chiefly in Western countries on emissions abatement, global temperature has continued to rise since 1990.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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

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

From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog

Cliff Mass

The latest satellite image shows the rapid development of the offshore storm.

The visible satellite image around 9 AM was stunning, with low-level clouds swirling around the low center (the orange arrow points to the low center).

Stunning.

Here is the blow-up of the clouds around the low center.  The circulation is obvious.

Strong, rapidly developing storms not only have rising motion that produces clouds, but intense sinking motion that produces a “slot” dry air coming in from the southeast.   

We can view the “dry slot” using satellite images that reveal water vapor content in the upper and middle troposphere.  Such an image is shown below, with blue indicating very dry air.    This is a strong storm… no doubt about it.

The latest National Weather Service surface map (and I do have some issues with the quality of their analyses) shows the storm at 7 AM, with an analyzed lowest surface pressure of  974 hPa.   The storm is rapidly deepening today, so the pressure will fall considerably more.

As I mentioned in my previous blogs, although strong coastal winds are an issue, my biggest concern is for strong winds east of Puget Sound tonight.  

The models are still going for threatening winds….with the clear threat of substantial tree damage and power outages.

The latest European Center forecast predicts winds exceeding 70 mph on the east side of Puget Sound, particularly towards the western Cascade foothills.  These are all easterly and southeasterly winds….not the usual direction of strong local winds.

The NOAA/NWS HRRR model, run at high resolution, is similar but extends strong winds over Whidbey Island and the San Juans.

The UW Model is also threatening with strong winds on the eastside, gusting to 50 kts (around 57 mph) at 10 PM. 

The maximum wind over Seattle based on dozens of predictions is predicted to hit 45-60 mph…from the east (see below). 

Bottom line:  strong winds from the east, gusting to 40-70 mph, will occur east of Puget Sound and will be stronger towards the Cascades.  Expect substantial vegetation damage and many power outages.    Driving down streets with lots of trees might not be a good idea after 6-7 PM if you living in the vulnerable areas noted above.

_________________________________________

Addendum:

Here is the 1 PM satellite image…the circulation has become very, very obvious.

Some satellites can measure low-level winds by measuring wave action…called scatterometers.  Here are the surface winds from a scatterometer around the storm around 12:30 PM PST.    The intense circulation around the low is obvious.

From Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog

Jennifer Marohasy

The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) put out a media release earlier today claiming to have scientifically documented changes in coral cover for the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the vicinity of Lizard Island.   Claims include that:

The losses of coral we’ve recorded so far are significant. Despite these losses, coral cover on most reefs is at moderate levels of between 10 and 30%.

In fact, the method used to survey the corals makes it impossible to determine whether the loss is statistically significant or not, and the surveys were only of the reef perimeters, specifically avoiding habitats with higher levels of coral cover including the reef crest.  So, claims that coral cover is between 10 and 30% really needs to be qualified.

Many textbooks have been written about the type of survey needed to know if there is a statistically significant change in some aspect of the distribution and abundance of an organism.  This could be the population of a city, or even the extent of coral at the Great Barrier Reef.   Knowing the distribution and abundance of organisms and how this might change over time is fundamental to understanding the world around us.  It is fundamental to the biological sciences.

Rarely is it possible to count every person or every coral.  Instead, scientists rely on samples that must be representative of the entire population of interest, and samples must be large enough to generate meaningful data that gives unbiased results.

A population will always include some natural variability and knowing how this is distributed in space and time is important before any conclusions are drawn about the significance of a perceived increase or deterioration, for example, in the corals.

Importantly, in order to be able to quantify statistical significance the data needs to be gathered as an actual count.  By which I mean the number of corals needs to be counted per unit area, and given the extent to which coral cover changes naturally with habitat it is important that the survey method distinguishes between the different habitats at a reef.

Of concern, the long-term monitoring being undertaken by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) of coral cover is by way of perimeter surveys that do not include, for example, the reef crest that is often the habitat with the highest coral cover.  This is the equivalent of claiming to know how the population of a city has changed but never actually going into the central business district (CBD) or even the inner-city suburbs or industrial area.  The AIMS surveys that have been reported upon in the media today are surveys of only the reef perimeter, which is the equivalent of skirting around the outer suburbs of a city and from this limited information having an opinion about how the population of a city might have changed.

It is also very important to note that the data is not collected as an actual count.   Rather AIMS coral cover data is categorical data, with the survey collected by towing a person behind a boat and noting whether the extent of the coral cover falls into one of the following categories:  0-10%, 10-30%, 30-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%.

These categories have a very large range, up to 25%.   It doesn’t matter how many surveys are undertaken, given the way the data is collected it is impossible to calculate average coral cover.   It follows that it will be impossible to know how average coral cover changes.

Because the AIMS coral cover data is categorical data it is not possible to calculate a standard error or any other such statistic. Calculating an uncertainty value, for example a standard error, depends on knowing the sample mean.   The method used by AIMS precludes this, it is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions about the statistical significance of the recent survey results.