Over 1,600 International Scientists Sign ‘No Climate Emergency’

[BeElBeeBub]

No, you attacked the signatories because of their jobs, not their qualifications.

No I attacked the assertion that their signatures carrier any weight when it comes to climate science and in particular when in opposition to a vastly bigger number of people with relevant qualifications. 

If you are putting your name to a technical document you cannot expect it to carry any weight if you do not have any expertise in the field the document pertains to. 

What would you say about a document in direct opposition to the consensus of your profession if it was put forward with "1,600 signatures" but a significant portion of those signatures were from people with little or no proven history in the field?

Or are you saying that Mr Nigel Beckwith, professional graduate Podiatrist, Post Grad. in Sports Science and Post Grad. in Science Education also has some high level experience in climate science that he inexicably failed to mention them when signing a document about climate science? 

[Borchester]

"A lot" is doing some heavy lifting there.

It's less that 1,600 - substantially less when you examine the list. I pulled 8 obvious irrelevents from a randomly selected chunk of 33. I'm sure a similar proportion would be rejected if you delved deeper into their bio beyond the vaguely provided "scientist".

No, you attacked the signatories because of their jobs, not their qualifications.

[BeElBeeBub]

Not really, particularly when there are a lot of brisk old men who dispute Climate Change and who have science qualifications, as opposed to St Greta who has merely has hysterics

"A lot" is doing some heavy lifting there. 

It's less that 1,600 - substantially less when you examine the list. I pulled 8 obvious irrelevents from a randomly selected chunk of 33. I'm sure a similar proportion would be rejected if you delved deeper into their bio beyond the vaguely provided "scientist". 

It matters because the "1,600 scientists" argument is an appeal to authority. You are supposed to take the premise seriously because these 1,600 great men (and they do seem to mainly be men) are telling you to. 

Arguments to authority are reasonable. You might defer to the civil engineer with decades of bridge building experience when he signs a statement that the cracks in the bridge are superficial and nothing to worry about. 

However,  I don't care how many civil engineers and airline pilots sign a letter saying the results of my MRI scan show everything is fine when the radiologists and blood labs are saying I need to start treatment right away. 

Greta Thunberg could fall into a sinkhole tomorrow and it would make zero difference to the number of scientists and the evidence backing MMCC. She is irrelevant to the case.  

The declaration is little more than the mad rantings of irrelevant old men pissed off their time has passed. 

[Borchester]

Why are so many old men obsessed with an angry young woman?

Not really, particularly when there are a lot of brisk old men who dispute Climate Change and who have science qualifications, as opposed to St Greta who has merely has hysterics

[BeElBeeBub]

So on the And on your side you have Greta Glumberg, who has a Phd in Professional Hysteria

Why are so many old men obsessed with an angry young woman? If she was the sole person raising the alarm you'd have a point, but she isn't. 

For all her indignation, her voice carries little weight with respect to the science.

It's the tens of thousands of scientists who study the climate and it's inner workings every day that I listen to.

Your great declaration is not backed by "1,600 international scientists" it's backed by whoever they could drag off the street to sign their petition. 

The fact they have to scrape together podiatrists, nutritionists and retired oil industry IT managers to even reach 1,600 speaks volumes. It's not even a tenth the number of people who signed a petition to ask the Obama administration to fund construction of a DeathStar. 

[Borchester]

have you actually looked at who is on the list?

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

Here is a sample from just the first 33 of the 142 signatures from the UK....

• Neils C. Arveschoug, Geophysicist, Private start-up Oil E&P Company
• Nigel Banks PhD Geology, Petroleum Geologist
• Andrew P. Barker, Biological Chemist
• Nigel Beckwith, professional graduate Podiatrist, Post Grad. in Sports Science, Post Grad. in Science Education
• Alan Richard Belk, retired Mechanical Engineer with a 40+ year international career in energy, industrial gas and chemical industries
• Chas Cowie, GDE Mining Engineering, Wits University, Retired IT Professional worked primarily in Mining and Logistics Industries
• Dr Philip George Davies, Principal Lecturer in the Department of Computing and Informatics at Bournemouth University
• Robert Davies BSc Airline pilot

So we have 4 people from the oil industry, one of whom was an IT professional, a bio chemist, a computing lecturer, an airline pilot and a podiatrist.

In what world are an airline pilot and a podiatrist "international scientists" in the context of climate change?  Maybe if we were talking about air traffic control or flat feet.

Another striking think is how many time the word "retired" appears in the descriptors. 288 times, nearly 20% of the signatories.

The signup process appears to have been a simple "sign here and list your qualifications" with no checks.  Lord Snufflebottom, retired wizard and time traveller could probably have signed up.

1,600 "scientists" isn't a large number compared to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of actual scientists, actually involved in actual climate science who say man made climate change is an actual thing we should actually be worrying about.

other eminent scientists on the world list include

• David Thompson, BAgricSc, MA, Animal Nutritionist
• Brent J. Bielema, studied Economics at Northern Illinois University, professional nutritional counseler (sic)
• Christian Jacot, Pharmacist
• Thomas Binder, Cardiologist and Internist
• James W. Buell PhD, Aquatic Biologist, Consultant
• Salmaan Saleem, Family Medicine Doctor

There is a huge number of oil and gas industry professionals, not that there is anything wrong or they might not have valid qualifications but given the prevalence of "climate scientists are only raising the alarm to get grant money" as an argument, it should noted a good chunk of signatories are literally paid (or were paid) by the anti climate change lobby.

So on the And on your side you have Greta Glumberg, who has a Phd in Professional Hysteria

[BeElBeeBub]

https://techstartups.com/2023/08/31/over-1600-international-scientists-sign-no-climate-emergency-declaration-dismissed-the-existence-of-a-climate-crisis/

Well, it was fun and Greta Glumberg certainly got some mileage out of it, but nothing lasts forever.

Time for a new crisis

have you actually looked at who is on the list?

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

Here is a sample from just the first 33 of the 142 signatures from the UK....

• Neils C. Arveschoug, Geophysicist, Private start-up Oil E&P Company
• Nigel Banks PhD Geology, Petroleum Geologist
• Andrew P. Barker, Biological Chemist
• Nigel Beckwith, professional graduate Podiatrist, Post Grad. in Sports Science, Post Grad. in Science Education
• Alan Richard Belk, retired Mechanical Engineer with a 40+ year international career in energy, industrial gas and chemical industries
• Chas Cowie, GDE Mining Engineering, Wits University, Retired IT Professional worked primarily in Mining and Logistics Industries
• Dr Philip George Davies, Principal Lecturer in the Department of Computing and Informatics at Bournemouth University
• Robert Davies BSc Airline pilot

So we have 4 people from the oil industry, one of whom was an IT professional, a bio chemist, a computing lecturer, an airline pilot and a podiatrist.

In what world are an airline pilot and a podiatrist "international scientists" in the context of climate change?  Maybe if we were talking about air traffic control or flat feet.

Another striking think is how many time the word "retired" appears in the descriptors. 288 times, nearly 20% of the signatories.

The signup process appears to have been a simple "sign here and list your qualifications" with no checks.  Lord Snufflebottom, retired wizard and time traveller could probably have signed up.

1,600 "scientists" isn't a large number compared to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of actual scientists, actually involved in actual climate science who say man made climate change is an actual thing we should actually be worrying about.

other eminent scientists on the world list include 

• David Thompson, BAgricSc, MA, Animal Nutritionist
• Brent J. Bielema, studied Economics at Northern Illinois University, professional nutritional counseler (sic)
• Christian Jacot, Pharmacist
• Thomas Binder, Cardiologist and Internist
• James W. Buell PhD, Aquatic Biologist, Consultant
• Salmaan Saleem, Family Medicine Doctor

There is a huge number of oil and gas industry professionals, not that there is anything wrong or they might not have valid qualifications but given the prevalence of "climate scientists are only raising the alarm to get grant money" as an argument, it should noted a good chunk of signatories are literally paid (or were paid) by the anti climate change lobby.

[Streetwalker]

One inescapable fact if the warming trend continues is that the ice caps over Antarctica, Greenland will melt more and this will lead to a rise in global sea levels.

If the glacial ice caps melt in antartica and greenland raising sea levels , then we would expect sea ice to also melt which lowers it .

[Borchester]

Build codes? Flooding has nothing to do with more rain, it's huge housing estates, retail parks and the like not allowing the rain to naturally get into the water course causing the problem. It skips of the surface and into the drains which go directly into the rivers, causing it to burst its banks, instead of the slow ingress that would normally happen.

Maybe we ought to build all new homes on platforms? It worked for the Venetians and God knows, anything has to be an improvement on the glum housing estates we have now.

[Nick]

If the climate is warming, as the evidence of recent years shows, then it will be bad for some people and good for others.

One inescapable fact if the warming trend continues is that the ice caps over Antarctica, Greenland will melt more and this will lead to a rise in global sea levels.

I don't think there's a climate emergency as in "we're all doomed tomorrow, if not later today!". But what we're doing now could determine a longer-term outcome - e.g. whether central London might have to be abandoned in within the next century or so.

Anyway, the move to renewable energy needs to be done now before all the oil and gas is used up.

Why were all the liberals like you camping in fields, living in trees and burning you bras in the 70's, campaigning against nuclear? We would be totally self sufficient now if we had nuclear. The issue is that you Liberals are constantly looking for something to ban and campaign against, you're not happy unless you're taking to the street. 

[HDQQ]

If the climate is warming, as the evidence of recent years shows, then it will be bad for some people and good for others.

One inescapable fact if the warming trend continues is that the ice caps over Antarctica, Greenland will melt more and this will lead to a rise in global sea levels. 

I don't think there's a climate emergency as in "we're all doomed tomorrow, if not later today!". But what we're doing now could determine a longer-term outcome - e.g. whether central London might have to be abandoned in within the next century or so.

Anyway, the move to renewable energy needs to be done now before all the oil and gas is used up.

[Nick]

So we are now at the "yes the climate is changing but it isn't our fault so there is nothing we can do about it" stage?

Or are we still at the "the climate isn't changing, it's just bad data" stage?

I'm never sure because deniers seem to vibrate between the two positions - which tells me neither is arrived at from a skeptical and logical standpoint.

The climate is changing, this is undeniable.

It is a problem for humans as it increases the rate and severity of extreme events and changes the habitability of geographical regions.

You do not have to believe in man made climate change via fossil fuel emissions to agree with the above 2 facts.

They would be true if the climate was being changed by a bond villain with a weather changing laser or solar flares or whatever.

We need to adapt to these changes.

Should the UK not bother increasing drought resilience? Should we not change our building codes to account for more intense rainfall or higher temperatures?

Is anyone here going to argue with that?

The contentious bit is to what extent man can affect the extent and direction of this change.

That's the argument.

On the one hand we have 1600 scientists saying there is nothing we can do (but also failing to discuss mitigations for the cha gr that is happening or what changes we should make given we cannot know what the climate will do as models are apparently useless)

On the other we have the majority of climate scientists. Who say that we are responsible and we can do something.

Build codes? Flooding has nothing to do with more rain, it's huge housing estates, retail parks and the like not allowing the rain to naturally get into the water course causing the problem. It skips of the surface and into the drains which go directly into the rivers, causing it to burst its banks, instead of the slow ingress that would normally happen. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I duno Bellbud , I think all we want is honesty . Over the years we have just had horseshit so I guess untill we get something thats proved not to be we will keep looking for why the climate zealots are wrong .And when we look we normally find they are

Well, if you are talking honesty and not being fed horse shit, have a good old gander at the side that is claiming man made climate change isn't a thing....

Thee fossil fuel lobby has know for decades about man made climate change. At one point they were the biggest funders of climate science. 

Any yet they have funded the continuous campaign against the idea of MMCC.

Look how the argument has changed and is still changing - it's not happening, it's errors in measurement, it is happening but it's caused by <>nsert one of several dozen theories>, it is happening but it's a good thing, it is happening and it is bad but it's too expensive to fix, think of the poor etc.

On the opposite side, the argument has been very stable - emissions from burning fossil fuels are raising the co2 levels and this wikk cause more heat to be retained on earth and cause increasingly largendisruptions of climate patterns. 

It"s been this for 50 years or so. And before you mention it, no scientists did not predict global cooling in the 60's.  There were predictions about cooling caused by increased particulates and the press and popular culture got hold of it., but the climate science consensus has been cwe are getting warmer" for decades. 

[papasmurf]

Yes, but the point is for how long ?

That was what fell in one hour. In 12 hours  465.5mm.

[Borchester]

That is the amount that fell.

Yes, but the point is for how long ?