Skip to content

Delingpole: Study Disputes That Earth Is in a ‘Climate Emergency’

February 9, 2021

By Paul Homewood


Dellers summarises the latest GWPF study:




There is no “climate emergency”, according to a study for the Global Warming Policy Foundation by independent scientist Dr Indur Goklany.

Goklany concludes:

While climate may have changed for the warmer:

• Most extreme weather phenomena have not become more extreme, more deadly, or more destructive

• Empirical evidence directly contradicts claims that increased carbon dioxide has reduced human wellbeing. In fact, human wellbeing has never been higher

• Whatever detrimental effects warming and higher carbon dioxide may have had on terrestrial species and ecosystems, they have been swamped by the contribution of fossil fuels to increased biological productivity. This has halted, and turned around, reductions in habitat loss

The report will make hugely depressing reading for all the prominent environmental activists — from the Pope and Doom Goblin Greta Thunberg to the Great Reset’s Klaus Schwab — who have been pushing the “climate emergency” narrative. It is an article of faith for the globalist elite and their useful idiots in the media, in politics, in business, and the entertainment that the world is on course for climate disaster which only radical and costly international action can prevent.

But Goklany’s report — Impacts of Climate Change: Perception & Reality — claims there is little if any evidence to support the scare narrative.

At the end, Goklany provides a table, setting out all the scaremongering claims made by environmental groups — and then comparing them with observed reality. Only one of the claims stands up, according to the study — weather has been getting slightly warmer:

More hot days and fewer cold days — Yes

Cyclones/hurricanes more intense or frequent — No

Tornadoes increase and become more intense — No

Floods more frequent and more intense — No

Droughts more frequent and intense — No

Area burned by wildfire increasing — No (area peaked in mid-19th century)

Cereal yields decreasing — No (they have tripled since 1961)

Food supplies per capita decreasing — No (increased 31 per cent since 1961)

Land area and beaches shrinking, coral islands submerged — No. (Marginal expansion)

None of the doom-mongering claims made about a decline in human welfare stands up, either, according to the study.

Access to cleaner water has increased; mortality from ‘Extreme Weather Events’ has declined by 99 per cent since the 1920s; fewer people are dying from heat; death rates from climate-sensitive diseases like malaria and diarrhoea have decreased (since 1900 malaria death rates have declined 96 per cent); hunger rates have declined; poverty has declined (GDP per capita has quadrupled since 1950 even as CO2 levels have sextupled); life expectancy has more than doubled since the start of industrialisation; health adjusted life expectancy has increased; global inequality has decreased in terms of incomes, life expectancies and access to modern-day amenities; the earth is green and more productive; habitat lost to agriculture has peaked due to fossil fuel dependent technologies.

It will be hard for green activists to dismiss Goklany as a “denier”. His credentials as a climate expert are impeccable. He was a member of the U.S. delegation that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a U.S. delegate to the IPCC, and as an IPCC reviewer.

Goklany says:

Almost everywhere you look, climate change is having only small, and often benign, impacts. The impact of extreme weather events ― hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts ― are, if anything, declining. Economic damages have declined as a fraction of global GDP. Death rates from such events have declined by 99% since the 1920s. Climate-related disease has collapsed. And more people die from cold than warm temperatures.

Even sea-level rise — predicted to be the most damaging impact of global warming — seems to be much less of a problem than thought, according to to the study’s findings.

Goklany says:

A recent study showed that the Earth has actually gained more land in coastal areas in the last 30 years than it has lost through sea-level rise. We now know for sure that coral atolls aren’t disappearing and even Bangladesh is gaining more land through siltation than it is losing through rising seas.

In his report, Goklany destroys many of the green movement’s shibboleths, including the notion that fossil fuels are bad for the planet. Not only, he suggests, has their CO2 contributed to “global greening” — “contrary to prevailing wisdom, tree cover globally has increased by over 2 million km2 between 1982 and 2016, an increase of 7 per cent” — but they provide the fertilisers and pesticides which simultaneously feed the planet and reduce the amount of land required for agriculture:

Thus, nitrogen fertilisers and carbon dioxide fertilisation have together increased global food production by 111 per cent. In other words, fossil fuels are responsible for more than half of global food production. Without them, food would be scarcer, and prices higher (assuming all else, including food demand, stays constant). To maintain the food supply, croplands would have to more than double, to at least 26 per cent of the world’s land area (ex-Antarctica). Adding in pastureland, the human footprint on the planet would increase to 51.2 per cent of the world. In other words, fossil fuels have saved 13.8 per cent of the non-frozen parts of the world from being converted to agriculture.

At the beginning, he quotes a number of climate doom-mongers, including the Pope. According to the Pope:

The effects of global inaction are startling…Around the world, we are seeing heat waves, droughts, forest fires, floods and other extreme meteorological events, rising sea levels, emergencies of diseases and further problems that are only premonition of things far worse, unless we act and act urgently.

Maybe it’s time the Pope looked at some actual evidence…

  1. February 9, 2021 10:38 am


    Please stick to facts, not ad homs. I gather that you cannot find any inaccuracies in what Goklany has to say


  2. Martin permalink
    February 9, 2021 10:38 am

    Unfortunately I don’t think it will make depressing reading for climate activists, for the simple reason they won’t read it. Nor can we expect it to have any coverage on our famously impartial national broadcaster.

    • February 9, 2021 10:51 am

      And our politicians certainly won’t read it.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        February 9, 2021 11:15 am

        They don’t read anything other than the legacy media which is why they are so ignorant. They prefer to be briefed verbally by somebody with ‘prestige’ which usually means lacking in expertise on the chosen subject.

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        February 9, 2021 11:48 am

        Nor will the pope or the clown prince of wallies!

    • 4 Eyes permalink
      February 9, 2021 11:05 am

      Some will read it but won’t dare discuss anything in it for fear of attracting attention. And pollies, even if they read it, will bag it because they have swallowed the big green propaganda, despite lots of sceptic questioning, for over 30 years and now they cannot admit their stupidity, ever.

      • Eddie P permalink
        February 9, 2021 4:02 pm

        Like the opposition spokesman for the environment it will be dismissed as ‘fake’ news.

  3. Mike Jackson permalink
    February 9, 2021 11:09 am

    “…GDP per capita has quadrupled since 1950 even as CO2 levels have sextupled)”

    All the true believer needs to dismiss the entire article and Golkany’s paper! When will we ever learn to stop shooting ourselves in the foot?!

    Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by roughly 68% (280 to 420 ppm) in more than 100 years. Where the hell has that piece of idiocy come from?

    • February 9, 2021 11:37 am

      I presume he means annual emissions

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        February 9, 2021 1:58 pm

        He may well but that’s not what the text SAYS. We should know by now that every undotted i and uncrossed t is a perfect excuse to say “see! they can’t even get their basic facts right”.

        The basis of the IPCC, and the community in general, argument relates to the effect of a “doubling” of atmospheric CO2 from ~280ppm to ~560ppm. Introducing another calculation without being quite clear what you are saying into that argument cannot be helpful!

      • February 9, 2021 2:54 pm

        Actually it’s Dellers who has introduced the word “levels”

        Goklany’s paper states:

        “GDP per capita has quadrupled since 1950 even as CO2 have sextupled”

    • Steve permalink
      February 9, 2021 1:51 pm

      Probably James, while he was thinking about something else.

  4. tao-das permalink
    February 9, 2021 11:12 am

    I await for the BBC’s response on this report.
    It will be interesting to see if it makes the BBC website or news programmes and how they they deal with the GWPF’s independence.
    Let’s hope star billing at COP26 but I won’t hold my breath

  5. Susan Ewens permalink
    February 9, 2021 11:24 am

    Mike, perhaps

    “…GDP per capita has quadrupled since 1950 even as CO2 levels have sextupled”

    refers to CO2 emissions “per capita” (i.e. anthropogenic CO2) rather than total atmospheric CO2 ?

    Just a thought.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      February 9, 2021 2:05 pm

      Thanks, Susan. See my reply to Paul above. You are both probably right. My argument is that if I can read it at first sight as a sextupling of LEVELS (which is what it says) rather than anthropogenic emissions (which it doesn’t say), then the ‘community’ can — and for sure will! — use it as a stick to beat us with if they get the chance.

      We can’t afford to keep giving them the chance.

  6. Tim Leeney permalink
    February 9, 2021 11:31 am

    The report mentions rising CO2 levels “and resulting climate change”. Ouch! Does he really believe that?

    • Broadlands permalink
      February 9, 2021 1:40 pm

      The temperature change is less than one degree C and sea level less than a foot. That’s hardly a climate change emergency. The emergency is manufactured by climate models designed to generate catastrophic results unless some fossil fuel CO2 is made to disappear from the atmosphere. Elon Musk will give you a million dollars if you can pull that trick off…

      • StephenP permalink
        February 9, 2021 1:59 pm

        I planted a tree! It will remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
        Can I claim the prize?

    • bobn permalink
      February 9, 2021 4:34 pm

      Yes Tim. Shows that Goklany is a luke warmer in that he’s swallowed the fiction that CO2 (rather than solar, orbital and oceanic response) have caused the slight warming. But even while being a ‘warmer’ he cant find anything wrong with it. Regardless of whether its natural (true) or manmade (false) warming, its all round a good thing. Bring it on, its F-ing freezing out there!

  7. Coeur de Lion permalink
    February 9, 2021 11:49 am

    What do we expect from COP26? The slightly accelerating slope of sawtoothed CO2 since COP1 at Berlin in 1995 shows not a tremor through Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris and Lockdown(s). Why is Boris entangling his reputation in a needless failure? I will enjoy the BBC’s coverage of course- it won’t be able to hide the eccentricity of the 20,000 freeloading jet-propelled delegates.

  8. February 9, 2021 12:10 pm

    Thank you to Dellers once again, not only for his journalism, but especially for the phrase ‘Doom Goblin’ . It’s made a grey, freezing cold day fell like summer!!

  9. George Lawson permalink
    February 9, 2021 3:00 pm

    I wonder whether Prime Minister Carrie Symonds will read it?

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      February 10, 2021 8:54 am

      Princess Nut Nut does not have a STEM degree, will not understand even if she does read it.

  10. Ian Wilson permalink
    February 9, 2021 3:33 pm

    A nasty little development I’ve heard on the 6.25 am Radio 4 Business News is first Arriva, then Legal & General boasting how they will sell stocks in companies “not doing enough about climate change”

    How dare these financial giants bully companies, some of whose managements may have done more diligent research on climate than Arriva or L & G? If their investigation into climate is so superficial, how good is their research into companies they invest in on behalf of our pensions?

  11. Geoff Carter permalink
    February 9, 2021 3:48 pm

    Surely climate change is cyclical – we had an Ice Age some ten thousand years ago! Since then the climate has warmed up. This can’t have been solely due to human beings driving cars and burning fossil fuels as that has only occurred in very recent times, as has the increase in world population. I haven’t seen many, if any, references to that fact in the news.

  12. bobn permalink
    February 9, 2021 4:42 pm

    Heads up that UCL (University College London aka London Unicorn Farm) have just published a study claiming all kinds of horrid things about air pollution. I read it on reuters so it will spread, but digging into the report its not scientific or based on any real world data. iTS ANOTHER ‘ESTIMATE FROM COMPUTER MODELS’. So when the biased media start citing it, it can be dismissed as yet more computer gamed fantasy.

    • February 9, 2021 6:06 pm

      Another example of GIGO

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      February 9, 2021 8:01 pm

      The Guardian went large on that today. Screaming headlines everywhere.
      I must’ve missed the Guardian’s coverage that the ‘report’ is merely model-based.
      Oh wait! The first reference to models is buried down in paragraph 13 of 15!
      Textbook propaganda.

  13. It doesn't add up... permalink
    February 9, 2021 5:25 pm

    Two things alarmed me on the radio this afternoon:

    Hearing Bill Gates plugging his new book on Net Zero.

    The news that the Cumbria council is “reconsidering” the coking coal mine. Some very nasty arm twisting in the background no doubt.

  14. February 9, 2021 7:55 pm

    [Comment deleted]

    [None of this has any bearing on the post, and attacking Goklany’s qualifications shows how devoid of an argument you are.

    For the last time, if you can find any factual inaccuracies in anything Goklany says, please make them.

    Otherwise all further such comments will be automatically binned.


  15. Gamecock permalink
    February 10, 2021 10:29 pm

    I’m impressed that Oxfam can afford such fine shirts and signs. Must be good money in campaigning for “the planet.”

  16. Olly permalink
    February 12, 2021 2:04 pm

    Taken off my Facebook page by the “fact checkers”. Says it all really.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: