The Paris Climate Challenge

As COP21 approaches, the Counter-Conference has also been arranged:

In 2009 we laid down the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, when we asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to answer 10 questions about climate. We’re back to ask the same and more questions, and challenge the climate ‘consensus’ in Paris at COP 21 with alternative climate hypotheses. If you have something to say in Paris, we still have places for a few more speakers. Take some time to navigate our pages, you can leave a comment if you’d like to say something in response to the articles backing up our 10 questions to Ban Ki-Moon below.

His Excellency Ban-Ki Moon,
Secretary-General, United Nations,
New York, NY.
United States of America
8 December 2009.
Dear Secretary-General,
Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize
how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.
We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate.Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:
  1. Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;
  2. Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;
  3. Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;
  4. Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;
  5. The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;
  6. Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;
  7. Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;
  8. Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;
  9. Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;
  10. Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.
It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.
Signed by:

Science and Technology Experts Well Qualified in Climate Science (169 Experts)

Science and Technology Experts in Other Related Disciplines (30 Experts)


  1. Another claim to ask them to demonstrate is: How is a 2 deg. C rise in my local temperature over the coming decades any different than me just moving a couple of hundred miles further south (I have already moved 600 miles further south, taking my plants and animals, with no ill effects what-so-ever).

  2. It will not be a 2C rise in your local temperature anon, it will add 5C to your heatwaves .

    1. Some people are easily fooled. No warming for ~20 years. When temperatures start to move again after the plateau, will they go up? Will they go down?

    2. You don't think a hot day or a "heat Wave" is hotter where I am now than where I was 600 miles further north? Do you understand anything about normal distributions? Will the dead of winter be also hotter? Do you understand that saying something does not make it true? Where is your evidence that the width of the distribution of temperatures will widen under "Global Warming". Logic would have it just the opposite. Since water vapor is the primary green house gas, the summer time will not see as high of an increase in the temperature excursion because it always already has much water vapor in the air which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. But winter is dry and has very little water vapor in the air thereby giving CO2 a chance to have much more of and effect (hopefully).

    3. Melbourne is 1600 Km south of Brisbane, Brisbane heat wave 35C ,Melbourne heatwave 40C

    4. Poor old little John. He cannot distinguish between weather and climate.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!