UN calls for human solidarity

The UN Development Program has just released the Human Development Report 2007/2008. To the title “Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world”, the 370-page document sends a clear message to the world: climate change is the 21st Century’s defining human development challenge. What we now decide to do about it will have a grave impact on the future course of human development. The report stresses that the world is missing a sense of urgency, human solidarity and collective interest and urges everyone to reflect on it.

It also points out that in the next decade, mankind will be facing challenges at many different levels. Climate change will not only be about our environment, but about the “state” of our entire planet. We will have to meditate on issues such as human rights, poverty and inequality throughout the world and across future generations.

The UNPD report demands that governments stop pretending to care about global warming when in fact their energy policies tell otherwise. Recognition on the part of the governments that climate change is a present reality is the starting point to tackle what the document calls “the gravest threat ever to have faced humanity”. Additionally, the report warns that the world has less than ten years to avoid the most damaging climate change effects.

From a fundamental stand-point, the paper argues that the way we think of progress is one of the greatest challenges 21st Century nations will be confronted with. The economic model that drives growth and the levels of consumption reached by industrialized societies is ecologically unsustainable. Therefore, countries will have to devise an economic and social model in line with the environmental reality as well as to come to terms with the fact that rising prosperity and climate security are not mutually exclusive. Overcoming this latter fear will be key to the future of all species on Earth.

Another important aspect is the reaching of international agreements and a demonstrated commitment by all nations to decrease the current level of greenhouse gas emissions.

The document, too, provides extensive analysis of climate change impact on the poor. Increased floods and droughts will make the dividing gap between poor and rich nations ever larger. As inequality increases, it will become even harder for developing nations to address climate change effects. Ironically, in today’s world it is the poor who bears the burden of global warming even though it is not them but the rich who are contributing to it. Once again, this argument serves to highlight that the greatest of the responsibility must be borne by developed countries.

The report inexorably concludes that it is “now” the time to act. Otherwise, “tomorrow” could be too late. Climate change comes as an opportunity for mankind to come together in common interest in response to a problem that threatens, among other things, to halt progress.

Original Source (s):

Find the full or a summary of the Report here

8 Responses to “UN calls for human solidarity”


  1. 1 Benjamin Napier Dec 1st, 2007 at 1:53 am

    The UN’s answer to all problems, real or not, is socialism. Socialism does not work. Never has, never will.

    The “climate change” problem recently was “global warming” and before that it was “the coming ice age” . It is all bogaus and is to make folks afraid to get them in line for the fleecing.

    The earth has warmed and cooled over the eons. We have no control or effect on the climate. In fact, recent research shows that carbon dioxide levels trail temperature change by 800 years.

    If you all give up your cars and fresh food, move to the nearest cave and eat what you can find, you will have no effect on the temperature of the earth. In all things, you must follow the money and the power. Politicians want to own you.

    The Scots of the 1600’s tried to establish a world of individual sovergnty and freedom. the UN is doing everything in its power to destroy that ideal. giving oup your Constitutional rights will not help the earth. It will just destroy your right to be a self owning individual.

    I have a saying: If government is the answer, it is a stupid question. We must send the UN out of the US and dissavow any relationship with them. They are communist oppressors. Period.

  2. 2 wanglong Dec 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 am

    I have just read this article,and Benjamin’s respones.I see an eye to eye with what the report provided with.Acording to my experience,it has rarely snowed in recent years.I think Benjiamin Napier is a wild man.

  3. 3 doug in Colorado Dec 6th, 2007 at 12:00 am

    wanglong, (is that your real name?) basing your decision to accept the “cataclysmic global warming” hysteria on your personal snowfall observation at one limited location in one limited timeframe on earth is risible at best. If you believe that the UN is the answer to mankind’s problems, you probably also believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, leprechauns, in the assertion that the Palestinians are ready for a self governing state, …and in Karl Marx’s economic theories, which have proven themselves over and over again as the best way to cause the deaths and subjugation of tens of millions of people.

    Manmade Global warming is merely the next “sky-is-falling, world will end if you don’t do what we say” excuse being used to stampede the human population into giving up their political and economic freedom, and to make them more dependent on the elites who see themselves as a world government. By all means, let’s redefine progress…how Orwellian…war is peace, stagnation is progress, slavery is freedom…read Orwell’s “1984″. (In case you’re not a native english speaker, I’m being sarcastic.)

    If you put a cork in the tailpipe of the world’s economic engine by cutting carbon dioxide emissions a la Kyoto accord, (which is still a highly debatable way of solving something that may not even be a problem) you will be trapping tens of millions in poverty without hope…the poor will indeed suffer most if economic development stops or even slows. Starvation and despair are as likely or more likely to lead to general war as a change in earth’s climate. My thought is that they will suffer for nothing, in that case…that the current “global warming” is much more likely due to solar cycles and related factors having nothing to do with manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Why else are the other planets warming also…or is this manmade warming somehow spreading to places visited only by space probes? It was significantly warmer than now in the 12th and 13 centuries…winegrapes grew in England and Greenland was probably pretty green…and there’s not an indication that it caused mass extinctions or significantly higher sea levels, or worldwide irreversible catastrophe.

    The UN in general is a dysfunctional family with only a few “adult” players and a large group of member countries with dictator-for-life types and tribal ruling elites and their cronies, who care nothing for the huddled masses in their own homelands, but are only interested in pursuing wealth and more power, and telling other people how they have to live (exempting themselves of course).

    For proof, look at the makeup of UN Human rights council…mostly human rights violators of the first water. Various UN bodies have decided that there is no fundamental human right to personal self-defense and that all firearms belong in the hands of governmental agencies, and other UN bodies including the General Assembly have stood by through a number of known genocides with their thumbs in an orifice where the sun doesn’t shine. While individual UN bureaucrats line their own and their relatives’ pockets (oil-for-food kickbacks and other insider deals) they do little or nothing to relieve the real suffering or stop the real slaughter, and a great deal to protect and enhance their own personal wealth and organizational power.

    Napier is a wild man, no doubt ( :-) sarcasm again), but in this instance he is quite right.

    I call for human solidarity also…against the UN, and in favor of human progress, by it’s old fashioned honest definition.

  4. 4 Steven Earl Salmony Dec 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    Dear Benjamin Napier and Doug,

    Consider for a moment that humanity could soom be confronted with serious global challenges, ones already visible, and looming ominousoly on the far horizon. If that was so, is there a chance your adamant and relentless denial of what our children will likely come face to face serves to make a recognizably formidable predicament even more difficult to acknowledge and address?

    At least to me, human solidarity is vital to an able response to challenges likely to be presented to the family of humanity in the offing.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001.

  5. 5 doug in Colorado Dec 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    For further insight into how the UN IPCC approaches things, read this:
    From the blog Climate Skeptic

    A Brief Window into How the IPCC Does Science

    I thought I had blogged on this topic of seal level measurement previously, but after reading this from Q&O and looking back, I see that I never posted anything.

    As a brief background:

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR

    Climate scientists are notoriously touchy about non-climate folks “meddling” in their profession, but they have no such qualms when they venture off into statistics or geology or even astrophysics without much knowlege of what they are doing. This story is telling, as told by Dr. Mörner:

    “Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

    And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

    Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

    That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”

  6. 6 doug in Colorado Dec 9th, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Read this from an IPCC contributor as further indication that we are being misled.
    Doug

    Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming

    Written By: Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
    Published In: News Releases
    Publication Date: December 5, 2007
    As a contributor to the IPCC’s 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate’s alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year’s Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.

    Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

    My contribution to the 2007 report illustrates the scientific problem. The report’s first table of figures - inserted by the IPCC’s bureaucrats after the scientists had finalized the draft, and without their consent - listed four contributions to sea-level rise. The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10.

    The result of this dishonest political tampering with the science was that the sum of the four items in the offending table was more than twice the IPCC’s published total. Until I wrote to point out the error, no one had noticed. The IPCC, on receiving my letter, quietly corrected, moved and relabeled the erroneous table, posting the new version on the internet and earning me my Nobel prize.

    The shore-dwellers of Bali need not fear for their homes. The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently, and that the Greenland ice sheet (which thickened by 50 cm between 1995 and 2005) might only melt after several millennia, probably by natural causes, just as it last did 850,000 years ago. Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold.

    Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore’s movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore’s exaggeration of sea-level rise was one.

    Others being peddled at the Bali conference are that man-made “global warming” threatens polar bears and coral reefs, caused Hurricane Katrina, shrank Lake Chad, expanded the actually-shrinking Sahara, etc.

    At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

    Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC’s 2007 report do not mention it once.

    The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth’s surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the “surface forcing”), and the temperature will scarcely respond.

    That is why all of the IPCC’s computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot”, the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.

    For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, “The science is settled”, remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC’s computer predictions. The IPCC’s entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.

    Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.

    The international community has galloped lemming-like over the cliff twice before. Twenty years ago the UN decided not to regard AIDS as a fatal infection. Carriers of the disease were not identified and isolated. Result: 25 million deaths in poor countries.

    Thirty-five years ago the world decided to ban DDT, the only effective agent against malaria. Result: 40 million deaths in poor countries. The World Health Organization lifted the DDT ban on Sept. 15 last year. It now recommends the use of DDT to control malaria. Dr. Arata Kochi of the WHO said that politics could no longer be allowed to stand in the way of the science and the data. Amen to that.

    If we take the heroically stupid decisions now on the table at Bali, it will once again be the world’s poorest people who will die unheeded in their tens of millions, this time for lack of the heat and light and power and medical attention which we in the West have long been fortunate enough to take for granted.

    If we deny them the fossil-fuelled growth we have enjoyed, they will remain poor and, paradoxically, their populations will continue to increase, making the world’s carbon footprint very much larger in the long run.

    As they die, and as global temperature continues to fail to rise in accordance with the IPCC’s laughably-exaggerated predictions, the self-congratulatory rhetoric that is the hallmark of the now-useless, costly, corrupt UN will again be near-unanimously parroted by lazy, unthinking politicians and journalists who ought to have done their duty by the poor but are now - for the third time in three decades - failing to speak up for those who are about to die.

    My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Take courage! Do nothing, and save the world’s poor from yet another careless, UN-driven slaughter.

    The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds. He is a former adviser to UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher and is presenter of the 90-minute climate movie Apocalypse? NO! He can be reached at monckton@mail.com.

  7. 7 Benjamin Napier Dec 14th, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Did anyone notice that the UN has now been caught funneling money to the Communist regime in North Korea? Please take some time to read about the UN. YOu will find it has always been an anti-American organization that only needs us for our money. Stalin said that communism couldn’t start itself, that it needed money to get going. It would get that money from the capitalists (read that the United States) and after it got going good, it would have no more use for us. They are currupt and collectivist. Nothing redeeming or even worth considering keeping in the whole bunch.

  8. 8 doug in Colorado Dec 16th, 2007 at 4:05 am

    The clear voice of Science? Try this.

    Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

    Dec. 13, 2007

    His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

    Secretary-General, United Nations

    New York, N.Y.

    Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

    Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

    It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

    The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line

    by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

    Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

    z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

    z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

    z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

    In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

    The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

    The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

    Yours faithfully,

    [List of signatories]

    The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

    Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

    William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

    Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

    Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

    Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

    Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

    Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

    Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

    Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

    Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

    R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

    Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

    Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

    David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

    Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

    Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

    Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

    Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

    Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

    Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

    David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

    William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

    Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

    R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

    Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

    Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

    Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

    Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

    Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

    William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

    Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

    Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

    Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

    Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

    Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

    Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman – Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

    Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling – virology, NSW, Australia

    Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

    Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

    David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

    Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

    William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

    Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

    Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

    David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

    Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

    Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

    William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

    Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

    Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

    Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

    Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

    John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

    Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

    Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

    John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

    Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

    Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

    Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

    Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

    Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

    Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

    Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

    David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

    James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

    Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

    Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

    R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

    Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

    Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

    Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

    Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

    Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief – Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

    R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

    Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

    Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

    S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

    L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

    Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

    Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

    Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

    Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

    Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager – Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

    Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

    Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

    Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

    Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

    Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

    David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

    Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

    A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

    Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

Leave a Reply




About

Aitana Vargas has experience working as a journalist for a variety of media platforms including CNN International and the BBC. She lives in Madrid, Spain.

My Topics