The WCD

In my last post, I discussed the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) as it related to the irrational panic and insane governmental policy decisions (e.g., lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, forced vaccinations, travel restrictions) that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic from early 2020 to mid-2022 (some are still on-going). In that post I wrote:

When the Great Barrington Declaration was published, it was suppressed, censored and its authors demonized by Anthony Fauci and his media minions in the Fall of 2020. Ironically, the authors' proposed policies then are almost exactly reflected in what the CDC has published in its most recent edit of its COVID guidelines now. The Great Barrington authors were correct then (my comments about it can be found here), and the CDC was 2.5 years late. 

Every public health "expert," catastrophist politician, and media hack that fostered unnecessary fear that ruined lives and livelihoods, not to mention children's education, many adults' mental health, and a nation's economy owes us an apology. We won't ever get one.

The catastrophist narrative that accompanied COVID-19 has an analog in the apocalyptic narrative that accompanies the so-called climate change "emergency."  

In the climate emergency narrative, we encounter arguments that are strong on virtue signaling and weak on science; the claim that 'the science is settled;' the argument that those who ask questions are 'deniers;' computer models that are not only inaccurate, but tailored to yield a specific result, and of course, suspect and/or cherry picked data to support the narrative.

Let me be very clear—the climate is changing, always has, always will. There will always be mild variations in temperature, atmospheric gases and dozens of other climatic variables. Oceans will rise and fall, species will die off, droughts, hurricanes, floods, forest fires will happen—always have and always will. 

But it is nonsense to suggest that these things are a harbinger of an apocalypse, that we need to immediately make policy decisions to 'save the earth'—the shrill argument of teenagers on the spectrum who are applauded by scientifically illiterate adults with an ideological agenda.

Recently, something very similar to the GBD has been published concerning climate change. Called the World Climate Declaration, it is described by Leslie Eastman:

Perhaps it is time to consider if the World Climate Declaration, which has been signed by 1,200 climate scientists and related professionals, may be something to seriously consider, promote, and act on. In the document, these scientists affirm that there is “no climate emergency.”

The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.

The scale of the opposition to modern day ‘settled’ climate science is remarkable, given how difficult it is in academia to raise grants for any climate research that departs from the political orthodoxy. (A full list of the signatories is available here.) Another lead author of the declaration, Professor Richard Lindzen, has called the current climate narrative “absurd”, but acknowledged that trillions of dollars and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists currently says it is not absurd. 

Particular ire in the WCD is reserved for climate models. To believe in the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. Climate models are now central to today’s climate discussion and the scientists see this as a problem. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”

There has been virtually no mainstream media coverage of the WCD, and it's likely that its signatories will be labeled as crackpots, deniers, and tools of the fossil fuel industry. It's also likely that the declaration will be shadow-banned and outright censored if it gains any traction. Sorta like what happened to the Great Barrington Declaration.

It's worth noting that the GBD has been proven correct, that its criticisms and policy recommendations were spot on, and that its authors have been vindicated. Sadly, this happened only after significant damage to lives and livelihoods was done. 

Its very likely that the WCD will also be proven correct, but only after significant damage to lives and livelihoods has been done.