JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say “panic now”

11,000 unskeptical scientists sign for a climate emergency.

Who remembers that 15,000 scientists signed some climate declaration in 2017? The same Prof Ripple, and Bioscience probably hope you don’t, because two years later there is the same rehashed, but with only 11,000 signatories. So 4,000 disappeared without a trace. There are however, the same comic indefendable graphs. Call it “extreme graphing” — every line needs to be diagonal. All “pauses” are disappearing. No fallacy remains unbroken.

To stop storms we apparently need to reduce the global population, stop mining “excessive” minerals, eat more veges,  and we need to preserve biodiversity, reefs, forests and greenery at whatever it was in 1685 or whenever the sacred preindustrial year of Life On Earth is declared. You know the drill — coal and oil are demon spirits. Exorcise them now! Then rinse, repeat and …hand-wash your undies.

This is panic-science: hold the error bars, hide the adjustments and heap on the hype.

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

Damian Carrington, The Guardian

The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.

“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”

There is no time to lose, the scientists say: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”

It’s not peer reviewed, but for the first time in history, The Guardian and The ABC don’t care. It‘s published in the journal BioScience. That’ll do.

Signs of catastrophe

Pack up your tea-leaves, here are the 21st century signs of the 6th mass extinction. Who knew — per capita meat production is a new signal of doom. And air transport is not an engineering feat but inherently extinct-ifying. Here’s their introduction to this graph:

 Since 1992, with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in generally solving these foreseen environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse (figure 1file S1).Especially troubling is the current trajectory of potentially catastrophic climate change due to rising GHGs from burning fossil fuels (Hansen et al. 2013), deforestation (Keenan et al. 2015), and agricultural production—particularly from farming ruminants for meat consumption (Ripple et al. 2014). Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century.

Climate Emergency Extreme, cherry picked, adjusted, graphs.

Fig 1: Doomsday graphs. Click to enlarge.

Note the careful expansion of scale to fit any box, regardless of meaning. All diagonal lines are are the path to salvation.

Climate Emergency Extreme, cherry picked, adjusted, graphs.

Fig 2: death and destruction “squared”. Click to enlarge if you dare.

What scientist needs error bars, raw data, or cause and effect?

See “J”: if the Y axis showed the range of pH that life on Earth existed under the line would look flat. Indeed it would look flat even if it showed the range some parts of the ocean varied each day and night.

The bigger better skeptic petition

Ten years ago 31,487 American Scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s signed the Global Warming Petition Project warning that there is no convincing scientific evidence that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic heating, and that agreements like the Paris Accord are harmful, and hinder science.

The double-layered hypocrisy-on-a-rocket is that skeptics have outnumbered and outranked believers in the signatory game for a decade, but the ABC and The Guardian never thought that was news worth mentioning, then or even now. And The Alliance of World Scientists’ List breaches all the same code rules which made the Petition Project supposedly unacceptable, but the same journalists who ignored the skeptics bigger, better list then soak up the believer one — no hard questions asked.

The other big difference is that the Petition Project aim was only to show there is no consensus and there should be a debate. The believer list is far more ambitious — It’s being used to claim there is a global emergency, and that we should not just spend billions, but transform our lives. Skeptics just want a debate. Believers want your way of life, your tithe, and your tummy.

The skeptics list only draws on the US pool of scientists.  The Alliance of World Scientists had to reach all around the world — they even counted one safari tour operator in Namibia. Perhaps he had a degree and forgot to mention it?

UPDATE: Ezra Levant on Rebel-News goes through the Canadian “scientists” on the list and finds people with diploma-mill science degrees from “non-accredited” institutions, others are experts on “reincarnation”, or “romance”.

As I said then:

The Petition Project was better done, done years ago, done twice, and has twice as many names on it.

Don’t miss the opportunity to pop in on the same journalists that think a list of 15,000 scientists doing a ten second internet form is newsworthy, but 30,000 checked and accredited scientists signing and mailing a paper form is not. Let them bask in their hypocrisy. Turn the screws on their cognitive dissonance. Be polite. Enjoy their struggle.

For the most part, the media actively ignored 30,000 scientists probably because it didn’t fit with their religion, their own voting preferences, or because they were afraid people they call “friends” might call them a names and stop inviting them to dinner. Cowards. (Let’s talk about being brave: Art Robinson, who organised the Petition Project, later ran for Congress, and his three youngest children all had their PhD’s simultaneously canceled, snatched or dismissed by none other than Oregon State University — the same place that this new “poll” is hosted — OSU.)

Where are the respectable, serious modelers?

The 2019 signatories are almost all me-too scientists who assume other scientists are correct, but don’t appear to check their assumptions.  Are they even aware of the failure of upper tropospheric water vapor predictions (the hot spot)?

Strangely, the world’s about to die and yet none of the top climate scientists are willing to put their name on the list. Instead, there are nearly 974 “students” and 342″candidates” for PhD work. About 20% are ecologists, some overlapping part of another 20% are biologists. There are also agri-specialists, economists, activists, policy managers, microbiologists, and zoologists.

After crowing about how unqualified skeptics were, only 156 (1%) of the 11,000 have the word “climate” in their job title or specialty. And even these climate experts mostly seem to be experts in adapting or mitigating climate change. They know things about food, forests, ecology, land use, disease, law, agriculture, policy, economics, communication and tree survival. This is not to say that they are wrong because of their qualifications (they’re wrong because of the arguments they make), but isn’t it rather odd, that the real experts in the field of climate modeling are all missing? Could it be that these 11,000 scientists are the me-too propaganda arm endorsing graphs and arguments that real modelers can’t afford to?

Of the so-called top ten climate scientists, not one signed it. No Michael Mann, no David Karoly, Phil Jones, Myhre, Gavin Schmidt, Andy Pitman,  Matthew England, or Wallace Broeker. There’s no Syukuro Manabe, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, William F. Ruddiman, John Francis Brake Mitchell, Susan Solomon, or Tom M.L. Wigley.

Could it be that these graphs are so bad, so indefensible, that the leading modelers can’t afford to be seen near them? That way, if they get asked any hard questions they can just duck it… not my petition. Questions like — which place on Earth has already been affected by man-made ocean acidification. Real NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification.

Is there anyone on their list who has reviewed the only chapter that matters in the IPCC report?

Last word

Looking over the 11,000 signatories from scientists declaring a climate emergency, I found a certain Professor Micky Mouse, Institute for Blind, Namibia. It seems as much quality control has gone into this survey as climate science. I think I’ll switch off the alarm bells.

Marc Hendrickx,
Berowra Heights, NSW

 When a few spam signatures made the Petition Project that was an excuse to debunk the whole list….

h/t Colin, Pat, Travis, T, Jones, Old Ozzie, Dave B, George, Jim Simpson.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (90 votes cast)
Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say "panic now", 9.9 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

127 comments to Doomsday poll shrinks 25%: Now just 11,000 MeToo scientists say “panic now”

  • #
    Kim

    What I’m hearing is that they don’t want to measure the temperature anymore. They want to talk about other things. If temperature is not an issue, for any reason, if there are no metrics that are being looked at then there are no decisions that can be made wrt the climate. ie the climate \ ‘climate change’ has just become a non issue.

    320

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      I just now watched it on the ABC’s 7:30 report (first time I’ve watched the ABC in months) and I’m amazed that Leigh Sales could keep a straight face, given the clarity of the absolute nonsense.

      Trust the ABC?

      Not me.

      311

    • #

      CONNsenSUSS is not Science. EVIDENCE is science. Einstein said it thus when similarly,connsensussly attacked,(100 Scientists against Einstein.)…“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

      290

      • #
        jpm

        Beth
        Michael Crichton, the author, put it this way: I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
        John
        There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

        110

        • #

          mere word play. Scientists can agree that different things are evidence of one thing. If enough generally agree that is considered a consensus. No scientist uses the consensus as evidence.

          55

          • #
            Peter C

            mere word play. Scientists can agree that different things are evidence of one thing. If enough generally agree that is considered a consensus. No scientist uses the consensus as evidence.

            Mere word play is what you are doing here Gee Aye.

            The proposition quoted by jpm is:
            ” Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”

            Anyway it is comforting to know that No Real Scientist uses consensus as evidence. Anyone who does must be an imposter.

            81

            • #
              AndyG55

              There are no VARIFIABLE results in climate séance. !!

              You can’t even provide measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

              And you think “faked” consensus is science.. So DUMB !!

              NO SCIENTIST are you, nutters !!

              So sadly ignorant, you are.

              51

    • #
      Yonniestone

      These geniuses have just invented the Doomsday Crock.

      140

  • #
    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      You praise them too highly. A better word is THUGS!

      140

      • #
        sophocles

        A better word is THUGS!

        I have a minor preference for cretinous coprocephalics …it has a good sound, a great rhythm and so few people know what it means.

        Ben Davidson pointed out that the UN, NASA, Princeton, Yale, and Harvard are now speaking different climate tunes and the media is not speaking a word of it. But then, that’s probably because the media is mainly made up of CCs — Cretinous Coprocephalics — who have no idea whatsoever what “Solar particulates” means. It doesn’t sound as though the new new new Climate Models are going to be greatly concerned with CO2, wholly CO2 and only CO2. mixed with a little and only a very little TSI. CIMP6, though, is still running far too hot. Maybe it hasn’t got the proton/electron waves in the Solar Wind and CMEs properly balanced yet with the UV and X-Ray/Gamma-Ray flaring. It’s only been (a bit less than) two years to shake it all out and get the Computer Modellers (Cretinous Muppeteers?) used to all the new Solar Stuff they have to include in their models, so I guess we should be patient and not hypercritical yet.

        90

      • #
        sophocles

        We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”

        Cool. They can avow and declare as much as they like: they’re wrong. Very wrong. There’s no Climate Crisis. Overall, it’s too cool/cold for there to be one: I can’t go without clothing at all comfortably and certainly not in winter. Brrr. Therefore there’s no Crisis. There’s Climate as Usual.i: At no stage have these Cretinous Coprocephalics accounted for Winter and Clothing That’s Bad Karma for the CC’s. They’re short on some more serious facts:
        – we are in an Ice Age. We are coming towards the end of a warm interstadial (the Holocene) within that Ice Age (The Quaternary Ice Age.).
        – somehow, everybody who starts pushing the big red PANIC Button never remembers that. I think we’re doing rather well, all things considered. When this interstadial comes to an end we will be very pleased to be able to access fossil fuels. It won’t be for a few thousand years yet maybe, it could be sooner. The Solar System may move out of the but those few thousand years will be ones of continuous cooling, like about 15 – 20 °C … lower. And what happens if the Solar System moves out of the Local Bubble gas cloud over the next hundred or so years? That’s going to Stuff Up their Sustainable Future Big Time.

        Now that’s Serious Cooling. I’m quite relaxed about that for now. As long as that Serious Cooling stays well away for the rest of my lifetime, I’ll be more or less sort of happy. I mean, it’s not that Seriously Warm we are able to go without clothing most of the time. It won’t warm up any more while the Solar System crosses Gould’s Belt. It’s the Cosmic Ray concentration therein which sets the present cool temps.

        Clothing: that’s another little inconvenient fact the Warmist Idiots also forget. Humans regulate their body temperatures with clothing. Wonderful invention. As long as it’s not comfortable to go without, then it’s not too warm. I’m sorry you warmists — winter is not warm enough to make your case at all believable yet.
        See http://sciencebits.com/ice-ages

        220

        • #
          sophocles

          Errata:
          For the paragraph above I mucked up: here’s a bit of a rewrite:

          The Solar System may move out of the Local Bubble and its gas cloud but that time over a few thousand years, will be cool/cold like about 15 – 20 ° C less than now. Some of the cooling is from the Cosmic Rays the planet is exposed to from the Orion Spur — the galactic spiral arm containing Gould’s Belt which the Solar System is crossing at present, and some more of it is from the Cosmic Rays in the Belt — itself: it’s a strong Star Birth and Star Death region. (Betelgeuse and Antares are both close to their ends and they’re in Gould’s Belt…) Gould’s Belt is a cosmic ray bottle.

          We’re in the Cosmic Refrigerator. Thats’ all going to Stuff Up their Sustainable Future big time!
          (They can only think of Volcanic Eruptions causing cooling, poor small-minded wee kiddies! The Galaxy is bigger and more powerful than that!).

          Trying to cook a meal and write a post at the same time — oh dear! How sad. I’ll try not to do it again :-)

          190

          • #
            Greg in NZ

            Hope your meal turned out OK . . . edible?

            Final reading of the treasonous Z.C.B. today in the Beehive of Bureaucrats. Hard to find any decent info on their shenanigans, except biased blathering from interested parties:

            http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1911/S00071/zero-carbon-bill-fails-the-climate.htm

            The “other main concern with the Zero Carbon Bill is the use of central planning to reduce emissions. Sections 5ZD and 5ZF of the Bill say the Minister for Climate Change must plan how and where emissions are reduced. Plans can cover all parts of the economy, at whatever level of detail the Minister decides, and can be changed any time. ‘We* have serious concerns with the Bill’s rules around planning, which are so poorly drafted that almost anything could go into the Minister’s plan’”. Emphasis mine.

            * The New Zealand Initiative think tank was formed in 2012 from the merger of the New Zealand Business Roundtable and the New Zealand Institute.

            So who, exactly, is going to be running the shoah? Minister for Cretinous Cuckoo Coprocephalics, James ‘the Green’ Shaw? Presidénte Cinders? Vice President Winston Peters? The Central Scrutinizer?

            https://genius.com/Frank-zappa-the-central-scrutinizer-lyrics

            This is the Central Scrutinizer
            It is my responsibility to enforce all the laws
            That haven’t been passed yet
            . . .

            30

            • #
              sophocles

              I “sacrificed” the posting rather than my steak. I covered the steak with fried onion, garlic and mushrooms. My only regret was that I didn’t slice ‘n dice more mushrooms … love mushrooms (especially fried in best NZ butter. We just don’t realise how bad the butter elsewhere in the world really is!) So I suffered from a minor dearth of mushrooms. I think I’ll get over it ;-)

              It was a good meal, thank you, not great, but you can see from above, the reason for that. It was very edible with grilled kumara and a lot of veges.

              I see the Z. C. B gives that gross idiot James Shaw, the scientifically illiterate, far far too much power. It’s going to be the Netherlands tractor protests RSN. It’s one of Labour’s “it’s urgent so pass it in a big rush and repent at leisure”. ones. I have to wonder how many times per year it’s going to be amended and how many of the amendments will require further amending … sheesh. What a mess.

              20

  • #
    Chad

    Instead of being the intended “shot in the arm” for alarmists..
    This could turn out to be a “shot in the foot” for them !

    230

  • #
    cohenite

    The thing to panic about is the 2 main Australian scientists behind this egregious nonsense are both university tenured and warping the minds of students with this rubbish. For instance this from Linden Ashcroft one of the hysterics, a series of debunked and misleading graphs visually proving the imminent death of the world:

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PCSgZjW8TY0G_m_-vClYSxxl0M7O-G621y2DfwzUWRg/edit#slide=id.p

    210

  • #
    robert rosicka

    I’ve actually tried to google the names of some of these “scientists” and some either don’t exist or have never used the Internet!
    Let alone the number of students

    230

  • #
    ivan

    As the cartoon at the head of the page says it’s all about believing and has nothing to do with science. In fact it has never been about science but about how the UN can get traction and money to help them impose their vision of a world socialist government on the people of the world. If we allow that to happen we will end up like the people depicted in Ayn Rand’s story ‘Anthem’ (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1250) not a pleasant future for the children to look forward to.

    120

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    I’m always bemused by the fact that “Anthem” came before “Atlas Shrugged”.

    70

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      In response to Ivan at 6.0

      30

    • #
      ivan

      It was the first one published but I’m not sure it was the first written. What amasses me is that she could ‘see’ what all this stupidity could lead to.

      70

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Anthem was a depiction of the end of the history of civilization and the first step of its return: the discovery of self. “I am, I think, I will.”

      Atlas Shrugged was a depiction of the producers of the world discovering they were both the energy and motor that both created and sustained civilization. Further, that their opposition was incapable of opposing them without using the producer’s honesty, honor, and productivity against them.

      The producers simply said, “Since you hold us as evil, we will withdraw our evil and leave you to your own devices.” In other words, they stopped feeding their opposition.

      Then the lights went out. Sound familiar?

      140

    • #
      sophocles

      one of my dictionaries has:

      phoneme …

      phone sex …

      phonetic …

      in that order which has always amused me. I wasn’t aware of male phones and female phones and that they engaged in sex … :-)
      Maybe that’s where those small mobile phones come phrom.
      Learn something new all the time …

      80

  • #
    Deano

    Funny – I heard the ABC’s “11,000 Scientists Say…” story this morning too and the first thought that popped into my head was “I wonder what the truth actually is here?” Such is the reputation of this billion dollar a year white elephant. A better story might have been to say 11,000 people randomly selected said they thought the climate changes. I, however, believe that each year the climate exactly repeats the climactic conditions from all years previously going back to the Big Bang.

    130

    • #

      Not 11,000 randomly selected but 11,000 who have careers that depend on the climate scare but who do not work closely with attribution of cause…

      These are mostly working group II and III people as far as I can tell.

      270

      • #
        John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

        Just a quick check of the list. About 70 psychologists, 29 political scientists, 59 from renewable energy companies or research, 73 economists and 110 geographers (depends on their field I suppose).
        I am sure there are many others not in a climate-related science and do not have the knowledge to sign such a petition. Of the geo’s, I roughly counted 113 geologists, 14 geophysicists, 19 geochemists, 46 glaciologists, 42 meteorologists, 138 oceanologists. There are many professors (2654)on the list but I did not search for their specialty.
        There are 10 from the CSIRO; 82 from the Max Planck Institute (they really made an effort there); 36 from Newcastle Uni (UK); 12 from UNSW; 22 from Sydney Uni (my alma mater) including one of ‘Worldviews and Transformative Learning for Sustainability’ and many from the Veterinary School, 18 from Macquarie Uni with many from the Cognitive Science School. After that, I got bored and gave up. Better things to do, but I did search for Donald Duck and Goofy, but they weren’t there.
        https://wfpquantum.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/2019/36931_Climate-emergency-signatory-list.pdf

        180

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      going back to the Big Bang

      I’d go back as far as the shoaling and closure of the Central American Seaway (CAS) about 4 M years ago.
      a before image

      70

  • #
    Matt

    Interesting timing. Just as Trump announces he is formally pulling out of the Paris agreement.

    160

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Am I the only one to notice that Damian Carrington, writer for The Guardian, has a famous last name:

    Consider “The Carrington Event” – - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

    ~~ ~~
    We signed the “Petition Project” {aka the Oregon Petition}, but I recall the cut & paste switched some of our education around. I wrote to Arthur Robinson, but he and family were being pressured (note the state mentioned above) at that time, so I don’t think our entries were corrected.
    The petition also got a few nonsense signers and lost a little credibility. If there has ever been a an accounting of the 31,000+
    … other than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#History_and_signatories

    … I have not seen it.

    60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Just noticed all of the scary graphs grouped together look like up ticks,

    Acidic oceans….tick.
    Declining sea ice…tick.

    Relevance to observed science……X.

    90

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Went to a science event just recently in a capital city.

    It was a full blown left wing event – it was all traditional owners, climate change and a truly ferocious “we hate anti vaxxers”.

    I was absolutely horrified and had to supress the onatr urge to run, to be honest. I could not process the blind, tribal mentality of supposed men and women of science……wow…..

    80

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      OS,

      Had to chuckle when a radio host told of a new Barry Humphries show that starts with thanks and acknowledgements to the owners of the land, the Pratt family.
      Geoff S

      30

  • #
  • #
    Penguinite

    What the hell gives being a “Google Scholar” any credibility with regard to climate change?

    60

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Those poor deluded climate scientists. If only they had access to the science published on this blog, along with the erudite commentary, they would change their minds quick smart /sarc

    No wait, they do, but stubbornly , they prefer evidence and facts.

    119

    • #
      Chad

      No PF,. Like you, ..They obviously dont have a functional mind between them to change
      They have the human equivalent of EPROMs , permanently programmed by overexposure to alarmist groupthink, hence , unable to function independently or rationally.

      101

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      I keep on asking you two questions Peter.

      1. Show us your evidence that man-made CO2 is the predominant driver of global warming; and,

      2. Who is the land manager of site of your recent bushfire dramas on the north coast of NSW?

      You continue to avoid answering these two questions.

      You either don’t know the answer or, alternatively, you recognize that your answer would undermine your position.

      31

      • #
        • #
          AndyG55

          link 1: Models….. FAIL !!!

          link 2″ Simulated…. MODELS artee with models… no link to warming… FAIL !!!

          link 3: Simulations, models built on unproven assumption… FAIL !!!

          link 4: regurgitated anti-science pap. no proof of warming by CO2 just brainwashed conjecture. ! FAIL !!!

          link 5: baseless opinionated zero evidence twaddle. FAIL !!

          /PF still scores BELOW ZERO on science. !!

          71

          • #
            AndyG55

            whoops .. edit ..

            link 4: FAIL !!!

            Looking at that conversation link and the graphic

            “back radiation 100%”

            Total and absolute BS !!!!!

            What ignorant anti-science clown drew that up.. !!!

            31

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          The fires were primarily in Land either dedicated as National Park, or managed by the Park’s on behalf of the crown.

          Of course they were. Why would you not mention that they were all on land that is supposed to be “managed” by National Parks Service?

          Well, because the fires are an indictment of the management regime that is adopted by that incompetent organisation. No wonder the joint burns. They have no fire prevention and mitigation strategies that work. They won’t cool burn. The won’t keep the old fire trails open. They won’t clear the build up of fire hazard material under the canopy. They won’t install and maintain fire breaks.

          However, I’ll bet the National Parks Service is the first to give a welcome to country and recognition to the traditional owners of the land, whenever it holds a National Parks conference or some other shindig. It’s just a pity that they demonstrate their arrogance by ignoring the lessons learnt and practices followed by Aboriginal Australians for millennia. Back burn. Cool burn. Clear the undergrowth. Throw the fire-stick and walk away upwind.

          It’s not rocket science Peter. It’s just arrogance and ideology. Yours and theirs it would seem.

          Regarding your CO2 nonsense; it’s a fail. Surely you can’t stand by the nonsense you proffer as evidence of man-made CO2 being the primary cause of the minimal average temperature increase that the IPCC asserts the world has experienced over the last 100 years? Can you not see through it? Are your powers of critical analysis so poorly developed?

          31

    • #
      PeterW

      What “climate scientists” are you referring to?

      Because there are bugger-all on this list of signatures.

      Paying attention is not your forte, is it?

      40

    • #

      Yes, Peter, just like you the prefer to wave the flag called “facts and evidence”. When asked, they can’t provide any that isnt irrelevant (like opinion polls) or adjusted beyond all recognition.

      60

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        I’m sorry, but since every bit of evidence from NASA, NOAA, BOM, any number of universities, and any number of papers I have referenced in my comments is ignored, then you are right

        17

        • #
          AndyG55

          You HAVE NOT referenced ANYTHING with scientific proof of warming

          If you had even the slightest grounding in real science, you would know that.

          You remain TOTALLY EMPTY of any empirical proof

          Models are NEVER evidence

          Conjecture and regurgitation of memes.. is NEVER evidence.

          But its all you seem capable of.

          71

        • #
          Rob Leviston

          I can reference one from the NOAA for you!
          Very interesting, unadulterated, global temperature record.
          http://temperature.global/

          11

        • #
          Carbon500

          Peter: where is the experiment (not using a ‘climate model’) which demonstrates a warming effect of CO2?
          I’m referring to a real experiment carried out by proper laboratory-based scientists and technicians who carry out real experiments on a laboratory bench, using real CO2, real water vapour, a real thermometer, and which has been repeated with the same results in other laboratories around the world using properly calibrated modern sensors? Please supply the appropriate article and journal.
          Coming from such experiments, what is the warming effect of an increase in 1ppm of CO2 in the presence of 1% water vapour, as found by such an experiment? An increase of 10ppm of CO2 in the presence of 0.5% water vapour, again under defined real experimental bench conditions?
          Unless I see this, I don’t care what NASA, BOM and other organisations say. I spent years in science and technology, and I’ve never seen such junk as is put forward as ‘science’ by certain people in what’s best described as the climate change industry. In my view, you really do need to adopt a more critical attitude to what you’re told.

          11

      • #
        Michael262

        Funny how peer review has now become important.
        You can’t have both ways.

        32

    • #
      AndyG55

      “they prefer evidence and facts”

      Something which you have NEVER been able to produce.

      Still EMPTY, PF !!

      21

    • #
      AndyG55

      Poor deluded PF. If only they had access to ANY real science.

      But he keep proven that he doesn’t.

      12

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If only they had access to the science published on this blog”

      Yes a lot of science is published on this blog.

      Not by you, though, PF !!

      01

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Delingpole: ‘Climate Emergency Is Real’ Warns ‘Professor Micky Mouse’ and 11,000 Other ‘Scientists’ ”

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/delingpole-climate-emergency-is-real-warns-professor-micky-mouse-and-11000-other-scientists/

    “The impression given is of a vast parasite industry – the Climate Industrial Complex – with a strong vested interest in promoting the “climate emergency” but with little personal understanding of the field themselves.”

    41

  • #
    Another Ian

    “11,000 Academics proclaim that by the year 2100, 98% of the current population will be dead from climate change something”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/06/world-scientists-declare-climate-emergency/#comment-2840613

    21

    • #
      Another Ian

      Another comment there

      “Note that there isn’t the slightest concern for the ‘untold human suffering’ their own policy recommendations would inflict.
      Talk about narcissism.”

      61

  • #
    Robber

    And now for the good news from those charts:
    – World GDP up
    – World food production up
    – Fossil fuels up driving greater productivity
    – Travel up as people spend their increasing wealth
    – No new facts from the alarmists/catastrophists

    100

  • #

    Thanks for that “last Word”! Bolt’s report last night was a great takedown of that Micky Mouse list…. https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6100933346001

    50

  • #

    Mickey flying off to the latest climate conference with other climate scientists…

    50

  • #
  • #
    Matt B

    As a graduate of Oregon State University (B.S. in Environmental Science, no less), I am thoroughly appalled by the blatant disregard for actual science. I cannot make my skeptical views known, as they would be considered heresy. It is absolutely shameful.

    71

  • #
    Brian

    When confronted by so many graphs of a plethora of variables that influence or measure a complex system it is expedient to isolate the variable that has the greatest influence, subsuming all others. In this case that is the unsustainable and growing population. What few understand and those who do seem to ignore is that our civilization, Western, Asian and all manner of variations in between only survives due to the profligate expenditure of fossil fuel. Regardless of where people fit into the spectrum between fanatical climate activist and rabid denier they seem blindsided to the common problem which is how the majority of the human race can survive over population in a closed system with finite and in reality quite limited resources.

    21

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Brian,

      Don’t be so negative.

      That’s what wars are for.

      KK

      40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      William Stanley Jevons wrote in 1865 about the coming shortage of coal in the UK.

      The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich, in 1968. It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s** and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.

      **he claimed that the world couldn’t support 2.5 billion people. And that by 1975 cannibals would be roaming the mid-west of the USA.

      60

    • #
      PeterW

      Brian….

      As modern agriculture is the only reason that we ARE able to feed the world, and as there are NO viable alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels on the horizon for that industry…… I hope that you are being consistent with your own argument, and refusing to eat.

      ……. and breed.

      30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    …MeToo scientists say “panic now”

    Maybe we should panic now. Then it would be over and we could all go home feeling good for a change.

    30

  • #
    Steve B

    As I understand it, the petition project signed by 31,000 was only for the US govt. Imagine if the petition project was re-issued towards the UN, how many more would sign on for that.
    The bottom line is, even if there were millions of science based signatures, the MSM would still ignore it, such is their blind faith in the cult of AGW. They would not want to contaminate themselves or others with such a heretic display.
    By the way has anybody verified the Prof Mickey Mouse credentials that was one of the ii,000 climate crisis signatories. Apparently Senator Malcolm Roberts has asked Adam Bandt if he can vouch for Prof Mouse from the Institute for the Blind. Surely the climate crisis mob would have vetted the names before releasing details – is this fake news or not?

    40

  • #
    Jay Bil

    Facts be damned they see it as a foot in the door to totalitarian or authoritarian rule.

    30

  • #
    Geoff

    I’m really disappointed in Mickey Mouse. I thought he was far too smart to get mixed up in this nonsense.

    80

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Jo,
    Today I blogged this on WUWT in response to a comment by Pat Frank:

    The actions of Learned Societies, Chief Scientists and Establishment folk have been very disappointing. When you study their position papers and the lke, you find practically no person or body who has researched the global warming topic in any depth. I have looked and looked for signs that any of these people have dug into the science to anything like the depth that you and I – and many bloggers on WUWT – have done, as evidenced by formal or informal contributions.
    You tend to find chirpings of a mutual admiration society. The various parties have made decisions, but the dominant decision has been to stick with the Establishment views. Those views were influenced by cells in academia, cells that are compromised because personal incomes depend on their research.
    How to combat this lazy, shallow, disappointing outcome from Learned Societies etc.? The best I have been able to suggest is already in progress, Pat, thanks to your personal digging and publication. It entails pressing scientists to do what scientists should do, namely, proper, formal, published error analysis. My guess is that our Australian Chief Scientist would be rather upset if he took the time and effort to do error analysis on data that he has been generalising and publicising.
    Discipline yourselves, scientists. At this time, you are acting badly, like accountants who have declined to engage auditors to help do a proper and customary job on error analysis. Geoff S

    40

  • #
    frederik wisse

    The whole world has probably more than 10 million people with a scientific grade , so with a number of 11000 what are we talking about ? 1 promille may be ? Is this US type of polling ,oversimplifying the whole matter with a large array of social science graduates and law graduates who have been taught to learn things by heart and hope that understanding sinks in afterwards ? Well take for instance the average Judge in our society , who is probably a bit more capable to forecast human behaviour than a chimpansee and is considered to be a scientist as well , well does not she or he make mistakes ? From the other hand if such a poll would be limited to people who have really finished a study in thermodynamics then the result would be that nobody not even 1 promille would be alarmed by our climate . This is a typical case of the blind guiding the lames . Well what should we expect when the explosion of carbon levels in our atmosphere with 1 part of CO2 per 10000 over the last 100 years already leads to all sorts of political ,societal , psychological and nowadays inclusive hysteria without a stitch of proof of actual influence ,when the manipulation of our scientific record is excluded ? Well folks be humble and please do not aggrandize your own importance . Who is able to overcome his dusty fate ?

    20

    • #

      I didn’t sign it and I’ve looked for around 100 names now of people who I know would support this and none signed it. I’ve now asked 9 of these ~100 why they didn’t and 100% answer was they didn’t know about it.

      30

      • #
        peter

        You personally know 100 (climate-related) scientists? You move in vested circles Figleaf. What do you do with them, make the coffee, clean the Lab, take out the garbage? Come clean (excuse the pun) with us? What’s your relationship to 100 scientists who have something to do with climate but never follow the news, or even just the headlines?

        30

        • #

          Hilarious.

          “Climate related” scientists are not what this is about exactly as you’ll see in the list. however my 100, comparing their study areas are more climate related than the average I can glean from the list.

          The 100 or so are current or retired biologists of various sorts, geologists and ecologists mainly. They are colleagues, former colleagues, co-authors and others who I know by reputation that I could recall without the effort of looking up their names.

          Most are working in areas which requires them to have a good knowledge of and take an interest in climate and other human impacts on the things that they study.

          I hope that helps red hexagon.

          13

      • #
        Peter C

        Why didn’t you sign it Gee Aye? Do you disagree with the proposition?

        30

  • #
    Ivor Surveyor

    Abstract 2018: Arctic researchers have just witnessed another extreme summer—but in a new sense of the word. Although public interest has long been focused on general warming trends and trends towards a lower sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, this summer saw the realization of another predicted trend: that of increasing precipitation during the winter months and of increased year-to-year variability. In a well-studied ecosystem in Northeast Greenland, this resulted in the most complete reproductive failure encountered in the terrestrial ecosystem during more than two decades of monitoring: only a few animals and plants were able to reproduce because of abundant and late melting snow. These observations, we suggest, should open our eyes to potentially drastic consequences of predicted changes in both the mean and the variability of arctic climate. [PlOS Biology I5-Oct-19}

    The arctic extreme of 2018
    The summer of 2018 underscored all three concerns. Beyond the general trend of warmer and earlier summers and a retreating snow cover [11], large parts of the Arctic, and in particular, the High Arctic, were covered by unusually large amounts of snow in 2018 (Fig 1). This pattern was particularly evident in Northeast Greenland (Fig 1) and at the research station of Zackenberg (Fig 1), where the local snow precipitation deviated from long-term mean conditions by several standard deviations. At Zackenberg, this resulted in snow melt being extraordinarily delayed. [PLOS BIOLOGY 15-OCT-2019]

    20

  • #
    Furiously curious

    According to “The Great Global Warming Scandal”, America’s climate science funding in 1989 jumped from 160 million, to 2 billion, after James Hanson told the legislators global warming and the greenhouse effect would lead to climate catastrophe. Since then 79 billion has been spent on US climate science, and we have 15000 scientists and 97% of climate scientists agreeing they shouldn’t rock the trough.

    40

  • #

    Graham Lloyd has an article in the oz – online…

    But consulting geologist, Marc Hendrickx, who highlighted the errant signatures said “legitimate researchers passionate about the scientific method do not do science by social media”.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/scientists-petition-on-climate-crisis-blocked-over-fake-signatories/news-story/eb7b2647890516320363863b8dd1caee

    30

  • #
    Chad

    If you can control your laughter over the inventive biased use of data, have a look over on Renew Economy. https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-main-grid-reaches-50-per-cent-renewables-for-first-time-17935/
    They are in raptures over a claimed 50% input of RE power into our grid.
    “Overlooking the fact that RT solar doesnt actually use the grid !

    30

  • #
    Fin of The West

    Regarding Fig.2 graph “j” (Ocean “acidification”), I thought when I was back in secondary school that the pH scale was logarithmic, or am I mistaken /sarc :-)
    As soon as you see those nonsensical graphs, it kind of makes you wonder what other stuff they make up.

    60

    • #
      Slithers

      When I went to school a long time ago PH 7 was neutral PH below 7 was increasingly acidic and PH above 7 was alkaline!
      PH above 8 is rather seriously alkaline!
      PH above 9 is Caustic!

      30

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Basically all our natural world is logarithmic. When I said this recently, some genius started talking about how curves are made of linear sections, totally missing the point about the effect of logarithmic responses.

      10

  • #
    John Robertson

    Funny how State Religion always returns.
    The new religion is strangely similar to all the old ones,except even dumber.

    Most religions looked for a way for society to live together and prosper,the Cult of Calamitous Climate only seeks Doom.
    Their only tune;”Doom,Doom,Doom”.
    Miserable bunch of ignorant humourless twits.
    11000 luvvies WORLDWIDE.
    How come so few?
    I think more people signed the petition to ban DiHydrogen MonOxide.

    After 40 years of 100% wrong predictions of Doom by Climate,AKA Ghia’s Revenge..Maybe nobody is listening anymore.
    Seems to me only the real second raters are left pushing this meme.
    Look where Manbearpig is now, shamelessly promoting “Beyond Meat”.
    Me I am switching to Beyond vegetables,that grilled Meat Carrot looks so good.

    Stupidity is contageous,only banishing the incredibly gullible can save your town.
    Failure to banish these fools will result in your community being overrun with clueless idiots…
    Oh right ..Nevermind.
    I am resident in Can-Ahh-Duh, where we have a “climate Emergency”…or something.

    40

  • #
  • #
    Simon Payne

    Great research, thanks for debunking this latest round of nonsense.

    00

  • #
    WXcycles

    This poll has finally really swayed me, I too am now convinced CO2 is responsible for everything.

    I’m now fairly sure CO2 gave me athlete’s foot in 1997.

    31

  • #
    raygun Reagan

    Does any one remember the Mickey Mouse Club ???
    “M-i-c-k-e-y M-o-u-s-e”, “Mickey Mouse”,”Mickey Mouse”, “He’s the one for me” — Old Walt Disney made a fortune on MM. MM’s Cartoons were/are classic. Then there’s Mini Mouse.

    10

  • #
    raygun Reagan

    Does any one remember the Mickey Mouse Club ???
    “M-i-c-k-e-y M-o-u-s-e”, “Mickey Mouse”,”Mickey Mouse”, “He’s the one for me” — Old Walt Disney made a fortune on MM. MM’s Cartoons were/are classic. Then there’s Mini Mouse.

    00

  • #
    Furiously curious

    This one never stayed up yesterday. Is it too subtle??

    According to “The Great Global Warming Scandal”, America’s climate science funding in 1989, jumped from 160 million, to 2 billion, after James Hanson told the legislators about global warming and the greenhouse effect, leading to climate catastrophe. Since then 79 billion has been spent on US climate science, and we have 11000 scientists and 97% of climate scientists agreeing they shouldn’t rock the trough.

    30

  • #
  • #

    [...] reiterata, perché nel 2017, lo medesimo lead author àveva pubblicato qualcosa di simile, raccogliendo àllora nòn 11.000, ma ben 15.000 sottoscrizioni. Dùe le còse, o ànche tra i [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    EJW

    I downloaded that list of 324 pages and did a few word searches. “Meteorologist” returned 29 entries. Student and research assistants entries averaged about 5 a page.
    I get a sense of signalling of behaviours on the part of some of the signers. Circular back patting.
    Scientists? on a band wagon.

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>