11000 scientists warn re climate change

You called these people fools.
I think my reference was to the folk who put the list together not the folk in the list.
Looks like you are guilty of not doing your research. Shame on you.
I can see you have a point.

Nevertheless there are a number of folk on the list who do not call themselves scientists , the engineers for example, and that seems to support the proposition that it is not a list of scientists.

There is one name who calls themselves an economist and I expect if they are a scientist they would indeed call themselves a scientist.

And look at post 164 why haven't those folk called themselves scientists? I think the reasonable presumption must be simply because they are not scientists.

The list claims to be a list of scientists...not a list of scientists, two economists, three engineers etc.
The claim seems to be wrong.
Alex
 
The point is...if you claim you have a list of scientists that is what can only be expected.
You could not have a list of Doctors and include engineers and the like.
As to proof.
The folk making the claim the list is of scientists are the ones who need to support that claim, it is not up to someone else to prove that there claim is wrong...The situation is similar to a theist claiming there is a god and when called upon to prove such replies to the effect you prove that there is no god.

It is reasonable to look at the site responsible for the list and their overview of those adding their names as less than competent and if you want to disagree that is up to you.
I think the whole thing could have been managed much better given the importance of the message and again if you wish to think otherwise that is up to you.
As I mentioned earlier I will be going bush shortly and won't be around for a while but before I go I would sincerely thank all those who contributed to my threads and provided such lively discussion, I really enjoyed all of it and must say it is an absolute pleasure to visit this site and get to discuss stuff with very intelligent (in my view) people.
The smoke is very bad here in Sydney and looking at the map it seems there are fires along most of my trip.
Have a great day folks.
Alex
 
Nevertheless there are a number of folk on the list who do not call themselves scientists , the engineers for example, and that seems to support the proposition that it is not a list of scientists.
My degree is in engineering. I am the principal scientist at a drone company. Am I a scientist?
My wife has a degree in biology, and worked in a research lab for two years after school. She did a fair amount of research; was named on a half dozen or so papers. Then she went back to medical school and became a surgeon. She would have signed that "physician." Is she a scientist?
A friend of mine at my old company worked as a physicist for ten years in Russia. Then he came to the US and is now doing engineering. He would have signed that "engineer." Is he a scientist?
And look at post 164 why haven't those folk called themselves scientists? I think the reasonable presumption must be simply because they are not scientists.
Or their current title is not "scientist."
The list claims to be a list of scientists...not a list of scientists, two economists, three engineers etc.
The claim seems to be wrong.
For all the ones I checked on, the claim was correct.
 
For all the ones I checked on, the claim was correct

You checked listed names which also had list qualifications and foundthe listed qualifications also count as being a scientist?

If not to strenuous a tasks can you list those qualifications which also count as being scientists?

Thanks

:)
 
You checked listed names which also had list qualifications and found the listed qualifications also count as being a scientist?
I randomly checked the list. All of them had worked as scientists (i.e. done scientific research and published papers in science journals.)
If not to strenuous a tasks can you list those qualifications which also count as being scientists?
Working as a scientist. Since I know the word will now be redefined and mangled, here is the definition I use - someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. That research is documented in published papers.
 
The point is...if you claim you have a list of scientists that is what can only be expected.
You could not have a list of Doctors and include engineers and the like.
My wife is a doctor. But she is also a skydiver and a parachute rigger, and her current occupation is rigger. Does that make her not a doctor? If they had a list of doctors and had her included, would that make it false?
 
Working as a scientist. Since I know the word will now be redefined and mangled, here is the definition I use - someone who conducts scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest. That research is documented in published papers.

Definition you give - much same as Miriam Webster

But looking at the list I would really find it hard that some of the qualifications listed count as science

However
Screenshot_20191122-060115.png

Mildly confusing?

:)
 
Definition you give - much same as Miriam Webster

But looking at the list I would really find it hard that some of the qualifications listed count as science.
There are certainly "softer" sciences, like economics, psychology and sociology. But there is real science done in those fields, and people even win Nobel prizes doing work in those fields.
 
I am not slandering any of those people.
I say the list is dubious and post 164 shows why.
Post 164 is utter rubbish as you have not proven anything whatsoever.

You keep making this dubious claim that it is fake, that they aren't all scientists.. 11,000 scientists agree from that list. You are making assumptions about their qualifications, casting doubt and those repeated question marks.. Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself. I will give you one example of one of the names you highlighted in what will quickly become your infamous "post 164":

Bauer, Manfred...Head of Customer Service Tyrol and Vorarlberg

They are meteorologists for the region and they classify themselves as customer service .. English translation.. https://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/en/topmenu/about-us/organization/zamg-innsbruck

Another one that you listed in a manner that was instantly dubious and a look at the list showed your deliberate misrepresentation in your post 164:

Black, Scott...Executive Director

Scott Black is an ecologist and an Executive Director at The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation:

Scott has authored over 100 scientific and popular publications, co-authored two books and contributed chapters to several others, dozens of reports on land management issues and his work has been featured in newspapers, magazines, books and on radio and television. He has presented to universities across the United States, as well as to international meetings and the National Academy of Sciences. Scott has received several awards including the 2011 Colorado State University College of Agricultural Sciences Honor Alumnus Award and National Forest Service Wings Across Americas 2012 Butterfly Conservation Award. [https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-hoffman-black-23205b8a]

Your post 164 that you repeatedly told me to refer to, as though you had a trump card because you think it is dubious.. All I can say is that it makes you look foolish.

You are not slandering these people? You posted their names in post 164 and cast doubt on the veracity of their qualifications on a publicly available forum.
 
Last edited:
excuse me ! i am auditing your science !
writing-hand-play-pattern-finger-baking-graffiti-crayon-kids-art-children-drawing-design-parenting-infatuation-1196592-1025x683.jpg
 
My wife is a doctor. But she is also a skydiver and a parachute rigger, and her current occupation is rigger. Does that make her not a doctor? If they had a list of doctors and had her included, would that make it false?

Does that make her not a doctor?

Depending on what your wife intends to do would affect what she puts forward

My qualifications include Radio Technician Ground RAAF, Registered Nurse, Midwife, Associate Diploma Occupational Health and Safety and a few minor certifications

My medical qualifications secured me a position of Safety Training Coordinator on a few off shore oil rigs, not so much my Radio Certificate (although it did get me positions of Radio Operator on two off shore platforms)

Back to the list

11,00 scientists - doctor, baker, candlestick maker - put down your qualification - IF that also qualifies you as a scientist - PUT DOWN SCIENTISTS

One of the oil rig companies sent me to do a Life Boat Captain course

If I was to apply for a oil rig position I certainly put that in

But I would not put myself down as a Sailor

So it appears, to me, the compilers of the list were sloppy at best, dishonest at worst and relying on lack of definitions (OK put Doctor X in, yes and all those qualifications that sound 'sciency')

Oh well rant over - back to holiday

:)
 
Does that make her not a doctor?
No. But per XS, if she put down her occupation as rigger on a petition to be signed by doctors, it would make her "not a doctor."
11,00 scientists - doctor, baker, candlestick maker - put down your qualification - IF that also qualifies you as a scientist - PUT DOWN SCIENTISTS
OK. If you do a petition, be sure to put that in the instructions. Problem solved.
So it appears, to me, the compilers of the list were sloppy at best, dishonest at worst and relying on lack of definitions (OK put Doctor X in, yes and all those qualifications that sound 'sciency')
From my spot checks, they were not dishonest at all.
 
Last edited:
There are certainly "softer" sciences, like economics, psychology and sociology. But there is real science done in those fields, and people even win Nobel prizes doing work in those fields.

Screenshot_20191122-095838.png

Out of the six - six areas (peace, literature, physics,chemistry, physiology or medicine, and economic science) - my personal choice would be just 2 as science - PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY - while the others might have science aspects applied to them

Example

Liberian - rare book - all sorts of exotic test applied to the book to detect its age, composition of the pages and ink, ie tools of science

The Librarian - expert in languages and regional writings narrows the origin of the book to a small region in a particular country

The Librarian - knowledge

Exotic test - science

While doing this post I came across this

library science
noun
  • :the study or the principles and practices of library care and administration
Firstuse: circa 1904

Seriously? A science? Not specialist knowledge?

:) Back to holiday
 
Why did so many (27%) not sign the other/3rd paper?

That 27% is a conservative figure as I have seen at least 1 surname where there are 5 different signatories in the 2017 letter and only 1 different signatory in the second/third paper.

2017 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229
World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M. Newsome, Mauro Galetti, Mohammed Alamgir, Eileen Crist, Mahmoud I. Mahmoud, William F. Laurance, 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries
BioScience, Volume 67, Issue 12, December 2017, Pages 1026–1028, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Published:
13 November 2017
Twenty-five years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists and more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences, penned the 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” (see supplemental file S1). These concerned professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental destruction and cautioned that “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.” In their manifesto, they showed that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. They expressed concern about current, impending, or potential damage on planet Earth involving ozone depletion, freshwater availability, marine life depletion, ocean dead zones, forest loss, biodiversity destruction, climate change, and continued human population growth. They proclaimed that fundamental changes were urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present course would bring.

The authors of the 1992 declaration feared that humanity was pushing Earth's ecosystems beyond their capacities to support the web of life. They described how we are fast approaching many of the limits of what the biosphere can tolerate without substantial and irreversible harm. The scientists pleaded that we stabilize the human population, describing how our large numbers—swelled by another 2 billion people since 1992, a 35 percent increase—exert stresses on Earth that can overwhelm other efforts to realize a sustainable future (Crist et al. 2017). They implored that we cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and phase out fossil fuels, reduce deforestation, and reverse the trend of collapsing biodiversity.

On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by exploring available time-series data. 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 1, file 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.

2019 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
William J Ripple, Christopher Wolf, Thomas M Newsome, Phoebe Barnard, William R Moomaw
Author Notes
BioScience, biz088, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Published:
05 November 2019
Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently necessary to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings of insufficient progress (Ripple et al. 2017). Yet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth's climate. An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis (IPCC 2018).

Most public discussions on climate change are based on global surface temperature only, an inadequate measure to capture the breadth of human activities and the real dangers stemming from a warming planet (Briggs et al. 2015). Policymakers and the public now urgently need access to a set of indicators that convey the effects of human activities on GHG emissions and the consequent impacts on climate, our environment, and society. Building on prior work (see supplemental file S2), we present a suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years for human activities that can affect GHG emissions and change the climate (figure 1), as well as actual climatic impacts (figure 2). We use only relevant data sets that are clear, understandable, systematically collected for at least the last 5 years, and updated at least annually.
 
Last edited:
There were but they have all mysteriously disappeared ...I could find some but so could you.
There were not.
Let's imagine we have a similar letter from the other side effectively claiming the opposite
We have had several such letters over the past 10 or 20 years - they seemed to come out fairly regularly for a while, as a tactic. They were all fraudulent - somewhere around here, I think on this forum, I posted what I found by checking the first few dozen names on one of those lists; it wasn't pretty.
The agw denial folks are very well funded, very well organized, and very busy, and they have wide access to all media - at least in the US. There is a lot of money at stake.
 
Back
Top