The 1690 Who “Declared” Climate Change a Hoax: Why This Pseudo-Declaration Is Pure Smoke and Mirrors

The Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel), a Netherlands-based campaign group, released its "World Climate Declaration" to argue that "there is no climate emergency". The petition has gathered 1,690 signatures, presenting its signatories as expert authorities on environmental science. However, closer inspection reveals that the vast majority of these signees have no background or credentials in climate science. This declaration serves as a coordinated attempt to manufacture doubt and undermine established scientific consensus.

The Signatories Who Are Not Climate Scientists

Clintel’s World Climate Declaration claims to have the backing of almost 1,700 signatories (specifically 1,690). But a closer look at these individuals reveals a telling trend: nearly none of them have actual expertise in climate science. From economists to engineers, the list is filled with people who, while accomplished in their own fields, lack any professional grounding in the complex science behind climate change.

According to a Euronews fact-check, the credibility of this declaration quickly collapses upon examination. The reality is that an engineer, architect, or economist lacks the specialised training to understand or make authoritative claims about climate science.

Independent analyses of the signatory list have revealed startling facts:

• A significant portion of the signatories are retired professionals who have not published active scientific research in decades.
• Many signatories are geologists or engineers historically employed by fossil-fuel companies.
• The list includes professions entirely unrelated to physics or environmental sciences, such as accountants, lawyers, and even musicians.
• Fewer than 1 per cent of the signatories self-identify as climate scientists or meteorologists.

No Evidence, Just Empty Words: Debunking the Clintel World Climate Declaration

The declaration’s primary assertion is that climate science is not settled, implying that there is still active debate about whether climate change is happening. But the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports the reality of human-caused climate change. Organisations like NASA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and thousands of climate scientists have produced mountains of peer-reviewed data confirming this.

Clintel provides no scientific data to support its bold claims. Instead, their declaration is a collection of cherry-picked ideas and unsupported assertions. To understand why the document lacks scientific validity, we can look at their four core arguments and why they are scientifically incorrect:

1. The Claim: "Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming"

• The Reality: While natural factors (such as solar cycles and volcanic activity) have influenced Earth's climate in the past, modern warming is entirely driven by human activity. The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report concluded that greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850–1900. Natural drivers contribute virtually zero to net modern warming.

2. The Claim: "Warming is far slower than predicted"

• The Reality: Global temperature rises are tracking incredibly close to—and in some cases, outpacing—the projections made by early climate models. Modern computational models have proven highly accurate, and the decade spanning 2014–2023 was the warmest on record.

3. The Claim: "CO₂ is plant food, the basis of all life"

• The Reality: This is a classic oversimplification. While plants do require carbon dioxide (${\text{CO}}_2$) for photosynthesis, uncontrolled increases in atmospheric ${\text{CO}}_2$ trigger rising temperatures, droughts, ocean acidification, and extreme weather. These negative consequences far outweigh any localised "greening" effect, severely disrupting agricultural yields worldwide.

4. The Claim: "Global warming has not increased natural disasters"

• The Reality: Attribution climate science has clearly linked rising global temperatures to more frequent and intense weather events. Heatwaves, severe precipitation, and coastal flooding have systematically increased in both severity and frequency due to human-induced thermal expansion and increased atmospheric moisture capacity.

The Motivation Behind Climate Denial

Why would individuals and organisations actively promote the claim that climate change is not happening? A closer look at Clintel's backing and affiliations offers clear economic and political explanations. Clintel was co-founded in 2019 by Guus Berkhout, a retired geophysicist who spent a significant portion of his early career working for the petrochemical giant Shell. Dutch investigative outlets Follow the Money and Pointer revealed a "financial oil trail", demonstrating that Berkhout received millions of euros in funding from major oil companies for his Delphi Consortium, some of which supported his climate-sceptic activities.

Furthermore, Clintel's ambassadors have documented ties to influential US free-market think tanks with a history of climate-science denial, such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These organisations are heavily supported by fossil-fuel interests; ExxonMobil alone donated over $16 million to such advocacy groups between 1998 and 2004 to cast doubt on global warming, while Koch Industries has spent upwards of $50 million promoting climate scepticism.

This funding is part of a massive, well-documented economic effort to block environmental regulations. According to research published by OpenSecrets, oil and gas companies spent over $72 million on federal lobbying in the United States in the first six months of 2024 alone. This follows a broader historical trend in which the fossil-fuel industry spent nearly $2 billion on US climate-related lobbying between 2000 and 2016. Analyses by InfluenceMap also estimate that fossil-fuel entities spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on lobbying designed to obstruct climate policies. By funding declarations like Clintel's and lobbying governments, these industries protect their immense short-term profits at the expense of global sustainability.

The Real Consensus: Climate Change Is an Emergency

While Clintel and similar organisations try to stir up doubt, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is not only real but also accelerating. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and shifts in biodiversity are not hypothetical. They are happening right now, and the evidence is visible around the world—from shrinking glaciers to stronger hurricanes.

Groups like the IPCC and countless climate experts provide hard-hitting data and projections. Climate change is not up for debate among experts who are actively researching the field. It is only in the circles of pseudo-experts like Clintel’s signatories where you will find such widespread denial.

The contrast between genuine scientific consensus and the pipeline of pseudo-scientific petitions can be visualised as follows:

Final Thoughts: Don’t Fall for Pseudo-Science

At the end of the day, Clintel’s World Climate Declaration is nothing more than a stunt. The petition's signatories are not climate scientists, and their declaration is backed by no actual peer-reviewed evidence. They are simply playing on people’s fears and misconceptions to serve interests that are directly opposed to global sustainability.

So, when you hear about declarations and petitions claiming that climate change is not real, remember to look at the facts. Listen to actual climate scientists who dedicate their lives to understanding this complex issue—not a handful of people with degrees in unrelated fields.

Stay Informed, Stay Critical

The next time someone brings up the World Climate Declaration as “evidence” that climate change is not an emergency, point them to the facts. Because, as it turns out, a list of names without climate science expertise is just that—empty names.