Has climate madness reached its peak? More genuine climate experts dare to speak up against the discourse of fear spread by politicians, movements, and the colored mainstream media. Climate Intelligence (Clintel), a global climate change and policy foundation, takes the lead with honest climate science and assures no climate emergency. “We tell a truthful story, not just one side,” said Clintel founder emeritus professor Guus Berkhout.

By Arthur Blok
 “Sadly, that was carefully built up by past generations is now rapidly destroyed by the evil climate and green energy policies,” Berkhout added. “Citizens pay the price.”

The Dutch retired professor, nearing 84 years of age and still full of energy, expects 2024 to be an essential year for what he describes as honest climate science. He gets very passionate when asked how the so-called global climate emergency is portrayed in the mainstream media.

Berkhout: “There is much more to climate change than reported in the past decades. Their story is embarrassingly one-sided.” Clintel’s main objective is to generate broad knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as the effects of climate policies.

After its launch in 2019, it published the World Climate Declaration (WCD), which has an impressive list of over 2000 signatories worldwide, including Nobel Prize laureates and leading scientists and climate experts.

The WCD puts a mirror in front of the scientific world that has made bold statements and presented dooming scenarios about man-made climate change and its consequences for the world. In its declaration, Clintel urges all climate science to be less political while climate policies should be more scientific.

Berkhout: “It is straightforward; We try to tell the total story. It is not because it suits a political agenda or somebody pays us to do so, but because we are honest scientists. The truth about climate change has been completely unhinged over the past 30 years.”

The Dutch geophysicist emphasized that he fully supports promoting sustainability, preserving biodiversity, and caring for nature. But it should be done in a sensible way: “Many measures are ideological and reach the opposite.”

Berkhout knows how the wheels spin in the industry. During his impressive career, the Dutch scholar worked for the oil and gas industry and as a professor at Delft University. A lot of his research was financed by geophysical companies worldwide.

He repeatedly explained that climate warnings and predictions do not result from a truthful scientific approach. “While it is presented as such,” he said. Scientists should openly address the assumptions and uncertainties in their global warming predictions. Politicians should not only mention the imagined benefits but also the actual costs of their policy measures.

Berkhout: "The climate system is very complex, and we still know little about how it works. Fake scientists claim that ‘the science is settled,’ but honest scientists say the opposite. They acknowledge that current theoretical models are still primitive and must not be used in climate policies. In other words, climate models are not fit for purpose!

The emeritus professors’ passionate way of talking is almost contagious. He is determined with his team to expose the truth for the sake of future generations.

He repeated: “Since theoretical models cannot be trusted, climate science should primarily be based on measurements. His leitmotif is ‘Let the data speak.’ However, most climate scientists are more interested in their models than data. Unfortunately, this is also what we see in the UN’s research organization IPPC.”

“How does the science of IPCC work? They started 30 years ago with the claim, ‘Global warming is caused by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (CO2). Next, they created a theoretical model that confirms their claim. An approach that is a mortal sin in science”, he explained.

In real science, the modus operandi is the opposite. Berkhout:” You have one or more hypotheses you want to validate? Then, you compare modeling results, so-called synthetic measurements, with accurate measurements. Essential in this process is that you do not aim for measurements that confirm your hypothesis but strive for measurements that may reject your hypothesis! That is science in a nutshell.”

The problem, Berkhout explained, goes much further. Many climate experts do not openly dare to criticize because they fear losing funding for the institute they work for. The support for Clintel is illustrative in that perspective. Many scientists support his foundation anonymously out of fear that their employers and colleagues will cancel them.

Berkhout: “There is a massive subsidy-driven machine behind the climate madness. You will be excommunicated as a scientist if you don't go along. Clintel is fighting as David against Goliath.”

“We are on the road to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator,” said (Goliath) Antonio Guterres last year. This is a typical example of how the media frightens us with doom and gloom stories about the climate: rising sea levels, hurricanes and floods, droughts and wildfires. As a result, the West decided to strive for Net Zero in 2050. The results are devastating, not just for the climate but for our society.

For example, the German economy is on the brink of collapse due to high energy prices. The landscape is being destroyed by industrial wind turbines as tall as the Eifel Tower. Forests are cut, the wood is burned, and this is supposed to be ‘climate neutral.’ At the same time, our kids are brainwashed at school and on their social media channels and suffer from climate anxiety.

However, Berkhout has a very positive message. The 1850 scientists and experts who signed the WCD stated that there was no climate emergency! In addition, they see increasing evidence that other factors play a significantly more important role than the CO2 molecules in global warming. They say loud and clear that science is far from settled.

The discoveries need to be used to update current climate policies. However, governmental policymakers continue to follow the fear-mongering CO2 narrative of the IPCC. Apart from the fearmongering factor, it harms the energy industry. So-called green energy systems are unreliable, and prices of green energy become unaffordable. Berkhout: “The world needs fossil fuels for at least another few decades.”.

“At least the last edition in Dubai was more realistic, where they made it clear that now and in the coming generation, we simply need fossil fuels to survive. It was the most realistic conclusion of all the summits held so far.” Berkhout continued.

He expects 2024 to be a spectacular year where honest climate scientists will develop new insights, where citizens will no longer believe the alarmist stories about climate catastrophes, and where our youngsters will become hopeful about the future. At the same time, more and more politicians will embrace the idea that economies cannot survive without fossil fuels.

Global warming must also be seen from a much broader perspective. For that, Berkhout has a very pragmatic message. 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 around 1800. Therefore, it is no surprise that we are now experiencing a warming period. But this warming period will end, and we will move again to a cold phase. That is how the Earth’s climate system has behaved for billions of years, whether we like it or not.

Berkhout: “We now look at our climate through a keyhole. The earth is billions of years old. But what do we do now? We look at, say, 200 years. That is embarrassingly short.”

In conclusion, pseudo-climate science and its doom messengers are obsessed with the carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. A CO2 concentration that is too high(?) in the atmosphere is considered the culprit of everything. CO2 is, in fact, demonized.

Berkhout does not doubt that CO2 has a warming effect, but his research results show it is very modest. Other factors appear to be much more important.

Berkhout: “We now pump tens of billions into this so-called problem annually to reduce that, while CO2 is the molecule of life. It is needed as a nutrient for all trees and plants. The entire biology of the earth is driven by CO2. If the percentage gets too low, less than 150 ppm, almost all life on Earth will disappear. We need more CO2 to make our planet greener. That is the other side of the story: after decennia of pseudo-science, this is an uncomfortable truth for many.”