A global group of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields representing 23 countries have written to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, challenging any scientific or moral basis for prevalent alarm-based proposals.A tiny sampling of the many prominent signers include American MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, Freeman Dyson of the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton, and Stanford University professor emeritus Elliott D. Bloom. Although merely a rocket scientist, they apparently cut me some slack for having written a couple of pretty good books on the subject, allowing me to legitimately add my name to their list of 45 U.S. professor signatories. Spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL), petitioners of this European Climate Declaration emphasize that the U.N. climate models used by their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are grossly unfit for predictive policy purposes. (I will add here, that repeated written IPCC admissions, along with best-source observational records, clearly support CLINTEL’s assessment.) Accordingly, the signatories attest that it is cruel and impudent for IPCC to pointlessly and grievously advocate squandering trillions of dollars on energy programs that undermine economic systems, while denying vital access to affordable, reliable electricity. Fundamentally, the letter supports a prima facie case against climate alarmism with eight straightforward and readily verifiable facts. 1. There is no climate emergency: Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. 2. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. 3. Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic [human caused] forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. 4. Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. 5. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide. 6. Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests. 7. Policy must respect scientific and economic realities: There is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world. 8. An honest climate science debate is warranted: Climate policy should be based upon sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation. The U.N. is urged to organize a high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of this debate in early 2020. This being said, why hasn’t it already happened? Perhaps the reason was best explained by Ottmar Edenhofe, who co-chaired the U.N. IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. Speaking in November 2010, he advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” Then referring to a then-upcoming U.N World Climate Summit, Edenhofer again clarified: “The next World Climate Summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” So there you have it. None of the U.N.’s pseudo-scientifically hyped environment emergency-premised global wealth redistribution and energy-starvation policy agendas are really about protecting the planet from human CO2-caused climate change. They never were.