The following resolution was released yesterday by the Schiller Institute, with the intention of rapidly collecting signatures from qualified professionals, political leaders, and ordinary citizens internationally. The main posting of the resolution can be found here, as well as the downloadable leaflet for signatures.

The conditions of life for billions of people depend upon rejecting the agenda being presented at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to adopt a legally binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality that mankind’s activity is not going to cause catastrophic climate change, and the very real, lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction programs being demanded.

There is no legitimate basis for having the COP21 conference. Put an end to this now!

Despite the climate-change narrative being presented by an extremely well-funded, top-down propaganda campaign, there is an immense amount of solid scientific evidence which clearly contradicts and/or refutes the claims of coming catastrophic climate change caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. For example, satellite measurements have shown that there has been no average rise in global temperatures for over 18 years, despite the fact that human greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing at an accelerating rate. This underscores the reality that the climate simply does not respond to CO2 levels in the way claimed by climate alarmists; said otherwise, the Earth’s climate system is not highly sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Because many climate models are using these false assumptions of high climate sensitivity to CO2, the predictions of these climate models have been consistently wrong, and with each year they are diverging further from reality. The gradual changes in the climate that have occurred over the recent decades, and the gradual changes which will continue to occur in the future, are not and will not be a cause for alarm. Most of these changes are natural, and any impact mankind may have would be relatively minor. A healthy and growing world economy will be able to adapt to these changes.

We must also recognize that CO2 is not a pollutant—it is an essential part of the biosphere. Because the present atmospheric CO2 levels are well below the optimum for plant growth, human-caused increases in CO2 concentrations are already contributing to increases in agricultural productivity and natural plant growth—creating a measurably greener planet.

But the Paris 2015 summit is not only about nations potentially wasting time and resources on a phantom problem existing only inside computer models—the ugly reality is that the CO2 reduction programs being proposed would increase poverty, lower living conditions, and accelerate death rates around the world. The world simply cannot support a growing population with improving conditions of life using only solar, wind, and other forms of so-called “green” energy.

More to the point, this scheme is being intensely promoted by modern followers of the population reduction ideology popularized by Thomas Malthus. Organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) have repeatedly declared that current human population is billions of individuals beyond the Earth’s ”carrying capacity,” and must therefore be reduced by some billions of people. The present push for a CO2 reduction program is deeply rooted in this Malthusian ideological motivation. But Malthus was wrong in the Eighteenth Century, and his followers are wrong today.

Energy-intensive scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher levels of energy flux-density, per capita and per area. Such progress, growth, and development is a universal right, and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption of a legally binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of life, with higher death rates, greater poverty, and no ability to exercise their inherent human right to participate in the creation of a better future for society as a whole.

This is deeply immoral.

For these reasons the CO2 reduction scheme of the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.

Bloomberg’s Josh Rogin, reporting over the weekend from the Manama Dialogue security conference in Bahrain, found that nobody shares the U.S. belief that Russia will eventually come around to the U.S. view on the future of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. argument, as put forward by Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken, is that it’s only a matter of time before Moscow realizes that its military intervention and its ardent support for Assad’s continued rule are mistakes, after which the Russian government could support a political process that includes replacing Assad.

Rogin reports that after Blinken spoke, a series of officials and experts from the countries that are allied with the United States on the Syria issue openly disagreed with the contention there was any significant chance Russia would come around to the Western view on Assad’s future.

Even the British don’t buy the U.S. theory on Russia and Assad. “There’s a school of thought that says that as the Russians get drawn into this conflict, they will more and more look for a way to get a political solution,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, but “it’s not my government’s assessment.” Hammond told Rogin that the day before the Vienna meeting, last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told him Russia did not have any flexibility on the issue of Assad’s departure. Hammond said that the Russian position on Assad is exactly the same as it was three years ago and that it’s likely to remain the same.

François Heisbourg, chairman of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, disputed Blinken’s contention that the Russians would change course under the cost pressure of their intervention. “I would be very surprised if Russia could not sustain such an effort despite its other difficulties until at least the end of the American electoral cycle in November of next year,” he said. In other words, Heisbourg expects the Russians to run out the clock on Obama’s administration.

Maxim Shepovalenko, a senior research fellow at the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, said that Russian thinking is that the intervention might actually succeed and that Assad will stay in power. “We believe firmly that the Syrians will decide for themselves, and if this campaign is a success, Assad is definitely the one who will be preferable,” he said. 

A frantic French President François Hollande has stepped up his international lobbying aimed at securing a binding international climate change agreement out of the COP21 international conference which opens in Paris at the end of this month. Today, he lobbied Xi Jinping in Beijing; on November 10, it will be African heads of state in Malta; on Nov. 15 at the G20 summit in Turkey; then island nation heads of state; and, finally, on Nov. 27, he joins the Queen of England, her consort Prince Philip, and their nutcase son Prince Charles, in marshaling the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM-2015) summit in Malta, behind the climate change hoax to reduce the world’s population by six billions or more.

But as he set off on his foreign lobbying, his government’s firing of the most popular TV meteorologist in France because he bucked the COP21 climate change lies, became a cause célèbre back home. Philippe Verdier was suspended mid-month as chief meteorologist for the state-run France Télévisions, after he published a book, Climat Investigation, which rips apart the climate scare campaign, and accuses state-funded climate change scientists of being “manipulated” and “politicized.”

Verdier told RTL radio in October that he had put himself “in the path of COP21, which is a bulldozer, and this is the result.” He told another French journalist that he wrote the book, after being “horrified” when Hollande’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called a meeting of TV meteorologists to tell them to highlight climate change issues in their broadcasts.

Verdier escalated this past weekend, posting a brief online video, reporting that he had been banned from being on air since he published his book, Climat Investigation, and then silently opening, “in front of you, in the name of freedom of expression and information for us all,” the envelope containing the official notification that he had been “fired by France Télévisions one month before COP 21.”

A petition launched in defense of Verdier by France’s vigorous “climate skeptics” minority, already had 15,000 signatures by Nov. 1, including signatures of 10 parliamentarians, RTL radio reported. France’s scientific resistance to the great lie, including scientists working with the Schiller Institute against this genocidal hoax, call themselves the “climate optimists.” They are mobilizing, and they are getting some media coverage.

An inquiry carried out in the wake of Verdier’s suspension by the investigative website, Arretsurimages, discovered that at least half of France’s meteorologists agree with Verdier and the “optimist” scientists.

Climate “optimists” in the United States are seeing what they can mobilize to gum up the works for President Obama’s intention to use the Paris COP21 conference to finish off the U.S. economy. The November issue of the Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News newsletter cites proposals by attorney Chris Horner from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that U.S. Senate pass a Sense of Senate resolution before the Paris conference, stating that any agreement negotiated in Paris must be ratified by the Senate to take effect. “The all-important point is to ensure there is no reasonable claim that `the world’ could reasonably have believed the [obama] Administration was binding the U.S. to anything in Paris.” The resolution could be done with a vote by a simple majority.