Oddly, 'Nobel prize winner' Michael Mann was not invited to sign The Mainau Declaration for climate protection

This seems sort of odd, not only was Michael Mann excluded (probably for good reason) but the names of the signers seems to be a secret.

Nobel Laureates appeal for climate protection

The Mainau Declaration 2015

Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings

To mark the final day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. The “Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change” states “that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions.” It is expected that a new international agreement on climate protection will be approved at the 21st UN Climate Conference to succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

Following on from the latest climate policy resolutions adopted by the G7 states and the environment- and climate-oriented encyclical “Laudato si'” issued by Pope Francis, the Nobel laureates’ declaration is another urgent warning of the consequences of climate change. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the declaration continues.

The Mainau Declaration 2015 is the result of an initiative on the part of Nobel Science Laureates who took part in the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. The signatories to the declaration have all been awarded Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine, in physics or in chemistry. Some of the laureates who have not attended the final day of the meeting had already put their names to the declaration earlier at Lindau.

The spokesperson for the initiators is US astrophysicist Brian Schmidt. Having grown up in Montana and Alaska, he studied physics and astronomy at the University of Arizona. In 1993 he was awarded a doctorate at Harvard University for his work on supernovae, the brief but brilliant results of exploding stars. Since 1995 he has been working in Australia at the Australian National University’s Mount Stromlo Observatory where he heads one of the two teams which, at the end of the 1990s, were able to determine from their measurements of the brightness of remote supernovae that the rate at which the universe is expanding is accelerating. It was for this discovery that he was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics along with Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess.

This is the first time since 1955 that Nobel laureates use the platform of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting to take a stand on social policy issues. The first Mainau Declaration signed on that occasion by a total of 51 Nobel laureates on the initiative of physics laureate Otto Hahn contained an appeal for the peaceful use of nuclear energy and warned of the dangers inherent in its application for military purposes.

The total of 65 laureates taking part in the 65th Lindau Meeting was the highest number ever assembled here. In addition to the numerous laureates of the medicine, physics or chemistry Nobel Prizes, the speakers also included Indian Nobel Peace Laureate Kailash Satyarthi and Nigerian Nobel Literature Laureate Wole Soyinka. The week-long conference annually provides an opportunity for an inter-generational and an inter-cultural exchange of ideas: Over 650 young scientists from 88 countries successfully passed the multi-stage selection process to take part in this interdisciplinary anniversary meeting. The Lindau Meetings were established in 1951 by Lennart Count Bernadotte af Wisborg and the Lindau city councilors Franz Karl Hein and Gustav Wilhelm Parade. Ever since, the final day of the meeting has traditionally been held on Mainau Island.


As smart as all these Nobel Laureates are, they neglected to put the names of the signers or the document itself in the press release above. I had to dig for it. Here is the document:


Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes, have come to the shores of Lake Constance in southern Germany, to share insights with promising young researchers, who like us come from around the world. Nearly 60 years ago, here on Mainau, a similar gathering of Nobel Laureates in science issued a declaration of the dangers inherent in the newly found technology of nuclear weapons—a technology derived from advances in basic science. So far we have avoided nuclear war though the threat remains. We believe that our world today faces another threat of comparable magnitude.

Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity. In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.

Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades.

Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk.

Oddly, they also didn’t put the signatories on their website, though they did post a photo:

The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change

“With this declaration, we outline the scale of the threat of climate change, and we provide the best possible advice,” says Brian P. Schmidt, Nobel laureate and a spokesperson for the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change.

He continues that he feels a “moral bound duty as a scientist on an issue that has such lasting consequences.” Four Nobel Laureates met with Brian Schmidt on Thursday, one day before the signing of the declaration on Mainau island of Lake Constance on the last day of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. These five scientists discussed this threat to mankind and possible steps and solutions: Steven Chu, former US Secretary of Energy, George Smoot, David Gross, Peter Doherty, and Schmidt, a Nobel Prize winning astrophysicist.

The declaration text itself states: “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy.”

Gross tells his fellow laureates and the attending journalists how he just visited Ladakh in the Himalayas: “These are fragile communities, they are very dependent on the rivers that spring from the Himalayan glaciers, and they are the ones that suffer first.” He points out that in the future, there might even be wars fought over water in several regions of the world. Doherty quotes from the Lancet Commission’s latest report: “They say that we may expect the breakdown of civil society in 21. century. And the poor on the planet are going to be the most affected, as always.”

All Nobel Laureates discussing the declaration in Lindau on Thursday morning agree unanimously that there is overwhelming evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases cause global warming. “There might be some uncertainties left,” concedes Chu. “It’s like in the 1950s when people didn’t know what happened if you smoked one pack of cigarettes per day – but the lung cancer rate was rising so rapidly that something had to be done.” Nowadays we can calculate the cancer risk of smoking quite precisely. “But do we want to wait fifty years until we know what will happen with global warming?”, he asks. Chu adds: “You don’t wait until your house is on fire before you take out fire insurance.” Doherty gives another analogy: when the HI virus was first discovered, many people, even scientist, doubted its role in the AIDS epidemic. But once the virus’ life cycle was understood and could be disrupted with antiviral drugs, most denial dropped.

Some of the signatories of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change on stage just after the signing. Image: Ch. Flemming/Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings.

Doherty also defines the difference between denial and scepticism: “If you’re sceptic, you talk to other researchers, you look at the data. If you’re in denial, you simply reject everything that’s being published.” Steven Chu explains how the best data on climate change comes from satellites: they clearly show how glaciers are shrinking all over the world, from Greenland and the Arctic to the Himalaya, the Alps and some parts of Antarctica. “But there are people in Congress who don’t want to look at satellite pictures,” he remembers from his time in politics. “That’s what I call denial.”

The Nobel Laureates agreed that politicians should act immediately to “lower the current and future greenhouse gas emissions”, as the declaration states. These politicians will meet at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, starting November 30, 2015. “It takes half a century to turn the boat,” states Chu. While it is true that newable energy technologies keep getting cheaper, this takes time. “At some point, the technology will be competitive.” Smoot adds: “You need infrastructure for that. This will also create jobs and give us a better infrastructure.” Doherty thinks that not only politicians need to reach results, but voters need to urge their leaders to act: “Politicians care about nothing except votes. So you have to convince the people who vote.” Schmidt replies that yes, voters could and should be informed about climate change, but that many politicians “will realise that they have a responsibility – it’s not only votes.”

Altogether, the laureates are cautiously optimistic, for instance when they think about the US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change last November. “It shows that we can move forward in the divide between developing and developed nations,” Smoot explained. This divide was one of the main obstacles in the past UN Climate Change Conferences in Copenhagen and Rio de Janeiro. The laureates believe that the global warming challenge can be met with a combination of politics and technology, Doherty: “We’ll solve this through policy and technological innovation – and the latter drives economy.”

Chu concludes: “I’m a technological optimist and political optimist. It is possible to find a solution, but we’re running against the clock,” because change is getting more urgent – and more expensive – all the time.

191 thoughts on “Oddly, 'Nobel prize winner' Michael Mann was not invited to sign The Mainau Declaration for climate protection

  1. This meeting will probably have about the same result as the 1955 meeting to reduce nuclear proliferation.

  2. This guy Schmidt has been totally debunked. I would not be surprised if his was the first Nobel prize to be returned.
    “Titled “Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from type Ia supernovae”, the paper was written by Subir Sarkar of the Particle Theory Group at the University of Oxford and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, together with colleagues Alberto Guffanti and Jeppe Trøst Nielsen. It suggests that the cosmic expansion may not be occurring at an accelerating rate after all, contrary to the findings of previous Nobel prize-winning work and most of our current standard cosmological models, including that of dark energy.”
    The theory being, all of a certain type of star having identical brightness, this type could be used to ascertain red shift with great accuracy, establishing that the ones farther away were receding faster. Psych! Turns out there are two types of these so-called Type 1A supernovae, and there are more of the second type in the ones farther away. Bye-bye Dark Energy…

    • perhaps NOT QUITE SO “Bye-Bye Dark Energy” It will have to be Tweaked into merely CARBON GREY energy

    • If we wrote off everyone who has made any unrelated statement that subsequently gets “debunked” then we would never listen to anyone. When discussing climate science, it’s better to stick to climate science itself rather than to try to draw ad hominem inferences from an unresolved argument in astronomy.
      My take on Brian Schmidt is that he’s a brilliant astronomer, but a Nobel Prize in astronomy doesn’t give his opinion on climate science any value above and beyond the climate-related analysis that he himself has done.

      • If he were a brilliant astronomer he would not have been publicly undressed by this Subir Sarkar. Sarkar looked at over 740 supernovae, where Schimdt looked at 50, jumped to a conclusion, and saddled us all with this suspect “Dark Energy.”
        He offers no new thoughts on climate, either.

      • Yes that was the article I originally quoted, thanks for informing me of what I informed you.
        “Indeed, the researchers’ work suggests that the evidence for acceleration is nowhere near as strong as previously suggested – it is closer to 3σ rather than 5σ, and allows for expansion at a constant velocity.”
        You are clear that in cosmology and high-energy physics, publishing without 5 sigma proof is, shall we say, frowned upon?

      • in cosmology and high-energy physics, publishing without 5 sigma proof is, shall we say, frowned upon?
        yet in climate science, 2 sigma (95%) is the gold standard. on this we will bet the future of the world.

    • Just like Dr Gavin Schmidt (NASA-GISS) I bet Dr Brian Schmidt does not know how to use the Schmidt Number. In Brian Schmidt’s performances on radio in Australia he has demonstrated that he does not understand Heat & Mass Transfer (which is an engineering subject in which he has no qualifications)

  3. What a nice place for a conference.
    In the most beautiful and the most expensive vacation/retirement real estate in the world, i mean after all it is only taxpayers or sponsors funds they are spending right?
    These self-righteous trough dwellers make me feel ill.
    Real engineers and scientists have been fixing the true problems of actual air pollution for decades, and continue to do so..
    CO2 as a villain – bloody hell what a crock of….

    • Mainau Island: here’s what it looks like. To decry consumption, brilliant Nobel Prize winners convene sumptuously.
      And, brilliantly!, “We undersigned scientists, who have been awarded Nobel Prizes…,” they begin their message with an argument from authority.
      One regularly finds that otherwise very intelligent people may not be above serious foolishness, and now we have this Mainau Island declaration. Given the different sorts of intelligence, and to account for intellectualized nonsense, I’ve developed a starfish theory of intelligence.
      We can suppose that some people can have lots of one sort of intelligence while being short-changed on some or all of the others. Like this; lots of short arms, one monster. One suspects the population of Nobel Prize winners might provide the most exaggerated examples.

      • It does look to be good dining.
        The menu food courses remind me of the food in Hamburg and I love visiting Hamburg. Enough Riesling wines, Rumtopf servings and fruit schnapps and I might sign almost anything. “Fräulein, a round of schnapps, bitte.”
        After the headache subsides on my flight out, I could be very unhappy about silly climate statements demanding devotion and belief not science.
        Besides, I’ve signed lots of nonsense things, as:
        Abe Lincoln.
        John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt.
        Georgi Washington.
        Martha Stewart.
        It is amazing how few people actually read signatures closely, bank tellers and occasional cash register supervisors are exceptions. Petition signature collectors are some of the worst at checking signatures.

  4. I would like to see them go without cars, airplanes, electricity, heat…and see how fast they change their tune.

  5. “over 30” people signed, 65 attended. Suggests they split roughly as the public, about 50%.

  6. “Steven Chu explains how the best data on climate change comes from satellites: ”
    And yet Steven Chu fails to notice that satellites show an 18 year 6 month pause in warming despite CO2 increasing during that same time period. to quote Mr Chu “That’s what I call denial.”

    • Not only that, he’s failed to notice the increasing ice in the Antarctic, the recovery of ice in the Arctic, and the greening of multiple areas which is very likely at least partly due to extra plant food in the atmosphere!

  7. Note:
    If the world had listened to this from the last time the Laureates spoke..
    …..Otto Hahn contained an appeal for the peaceful use of nuclear energy…….
    We would not have had the one today….

  8. “Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk.”
    And acting now will subject current and future generations to even more unconscionable and unacceptable risk. If the earth’s climate ever does exceed 2 degrees of warming, and if any of the forecast problems actually materialize, it will be much cheaper to adapt than to try to prevent them. We will also have better technology and better understanding of the climate in the future than we have now.

  9. FTA: “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the declaration continues.” 😡
    So, now the Nobelly Prize recipients are advocating population culling/genocide. Don’t know how other to interpret this phrase…. If there’s too many of us, someone’s gotta go!!!

    • Why does the name Malthus suddenly pop into my mind? Isn’t he the guy who thought the dangers of population growth precluded progress toward a utopian society? Do you think he would trade places with me if he knew how things would turn out in the 21st century?
      I really hate it when people come up with these “if we keep doing what we’re doing, something awful will happen” admonitions. The fact is, we NEVER keep doing what we’re doing. We’re not sheep. We adapt! We came out of nice, cozy, warm Africa and populated cold Europe. Whatever happens, we’ll adapt.

    • The culling has been done all along via Bofors by supplying the endless wars with armaments. I see the Nobel prize as having been a way to launder the blood money given to the Nobel prize organisation by Bofors.

      • Wars in general do not decrease the overall population, and often result in increases in population.

    • So, if we don’t let some people die, then people will die? What a puzzler…

      • Doug and/or
        Please don’t subject me to – sarcasm.
        Nail my head to the floor – please – before you do the sarcastic bits . . . . .
        [Well, I’m not sure it is the real Douglas and/or Dinsdale, but it is reasonable to be ahead of the game – just in case . . . .]
        PS – Mods – get a life; view Monty Python.
        You will see the reference and the reaction. Thanks.
        [PS – yes this forty years old, and therefore might – just might – date me!]

  10. None of these Nobelists have credentials relating to climatology. Do they know what a Stephenson sreen is, or Antony’s discovery about whitewash versus white latex paint? Do they know the finest computational scale of GCMs relative to the scales needed to resolve (even crudely) convection cells? How about the ‘pause’ relative to climate model falsification? Or the important difference between spring and summer ice for polar bears which puts the lie to Sterling, Derocher, and the USGS?
    Linus Pauling won two prizes, and he was wrong about Vitamin C. Chemistry ain’t medicine.
    This declaration carries about as much factual weight as the Pope’s encyclical. Just another billboard on the road to Paris.

    • The document speaks clearly of overpopulation. That is, and has been for a long time, the principle fear of the educated leftist. It is unlikely to be a coincidence that the same strategies used to control the climate also control populations — just how many people will survive decarbonization? What is interesting is that the poor nations of earth never “carbonized” and will be rather less affected than, say, the United States or Canada.

      • Even more interesting that the growth in global GDP over the last 15-20 years has pulled at least 1.5 billion people out of poverty and the increased prosperity has started to reduce the birth rate in developing countries down close to the 2.1 children/mother needed for replacement. The UN now is predicting that world population is likely to peak at 9 billion late in this century before starting to decline.
        So the best, most predictable cure for any global warming there might be is the industrialization of the third world. Also the best way to protect against the vagaries of climate. People with money can adapt, people in poverty just die, regardless of the disaster.

      • I am anything but an educated leftists, educated yes.. but I too fear overpopulation. Worse, I fear overpopulation combined with hi-tech, such that the unskilled and low skilled person has no economic productive potential at all.
        The world of the affluent consumer of machine assembled toys who has some tech skills to offer simply doesn’t need the great unwashed – and how long before some justification for eradication comes along?
        There is not an infinite supply of resources to sustain an infinite number of people on a finite planet.
        Who is going to die, or not get born at all? And who is to decide? If anyone?
        Those are the questions.
        What is clear to me however,. is that the Left – especially the Green Left, is firmly on the side of an elite who see themselves as the authority and the arbiters of some sort of ideological Final Solution.
        This is the ultimate betrayal of the class of people that gave them power and authority.

      • @LeoSmth, the world is no danger of overpopulation. People feared it centuries ago, and still we cope. There is more than enough land to feed everyone. What stops everyone from being fed is the lack of infrastructure to transport the food to the people.
        The population of the world has boomed, but it will naturally plateau as more countries become developed. In developed countries family sizes are small because kids are expensive. Its only in poor developing countries that families are large as they need lots of kids to do all the manual work.
        As for resources, there is a finite supply but that ignores the fact that there is in reality a very large supply in which it would still take centuries to use up. And we can recycle (like steel & aluminium) or switch to other resources as needs change.

      • There is not an infinite supply of resources to sustain an infinite number of people on a finite planet.
        thus we won’t get an infinite number of people on the planet. problem solved. really what you are worried about is competition. will someone else eat your share of the pie.
        by weight, there is a whole lot more bacteria on earth than humans. Do we worry about the finite planet being unable to support infinite bacteria?

    • Yes, they admit it. It’s in the document:
      “not as experts in the field of climate change..”
      So are there any good reasons for paying any attention to what they say? Nobel Prize Winners in Tiddleywinks might have as much right to make statements like this. But who’s going to point that out in the MSM? Somehow it only matters if you’re an expert in the field if you don’t go along with the ‘consensus’.

    • “Linus Pauling won two prizes, and he was wrong about Vitamin C.”
      With almost total certainty you can bet on that the people (like you) who claim that Pauling “was wrong about Vitamin C” are either (1) pawns and hacks of the massive business of conventional medicine, (2) unwitting people who repeat their propaganda, (3) people who never actually looked deeply into Pauling’s work and dietary supplements, or (4) people who fall into a combination of the former categories.
      Primarily it is the corrupt BUSINESS of orthodox medicine and their salespeople who keep ridiculing Pauling as some deluded Nobel Prize winner. And it doesn’t take a genius to see why: Pauling had been threatening the huge bottom line of big corporate medicine. Here is a good example of a hack MD who has been discrediting Pauling and supplements with disinformation and lies – http://www.supplements-and-health.com/vitamin-benefits.html
      If you look closely, you’ll find that politics by the allopathy is almost always behind the truly unscientific dumb attacks against Pauling. It’s indicative of how little real science is behind the various claims of traditional medicine. Or the truly silly statement you made, “Chemistry ain’t medicine” … right, medicine is miles away from anything close to chemistry is is more related to knitting…

      • Pauling was no dummy. It appears to me he simply made maximal use of his “Nobel” fame and chose to run with the Vit C story to make a quid. And did so very successfully, setting up an institute on investor and government funds. And he did so quite ruthlessly, too, suppressing publications from his own institute which countered some of his claims.
        Vitamin C is an essential molecule in quite a number of biological reactions, but it is pretty hard to find anything substantial supporting the ‘mega dose cures everything’ role for Vit C.

  11. That’s Tim Hunt in the middle.
    He’s a known sexist and has (obviously, quite rightly) been sacked.
    Cleary these people are dinosaurs who should be ignored.

    • Unless Tim Hunt has done something egregious, apart from his very innocuous statements, I see him being crucified on a cross of pc bigotry.

    • Tim Hunt’s views on women in the lab don’t disqualify him from commenting on environmental issues any more than his accomplishments in biochemistry qualify him to comment on said issues.

      • i see you probably mean the guy next to Elisabeth Blackburn. That is Klaus von Klitzing. Just another white old guy.

  12. I have no respect for the “Nobel Prize” at all. Just the award to Gore and Obama should tell you something about that prize. If it does not, then consider Schmidt as mentioned above.

    • Gore also got one.
      But I’m puzzled as to just where Mann should fit in. Lower than both? 😎

    • Yeah, but they gave it to Arafat for pretending to stop being a terrorist.
      They’re not so smart are they, but I bet the wine they drink at their dinners is top notch.

    • A physics Nobel is a totally, totally different from the politically motivated Norwegian prize.

    • Yasser Arafat a terrorist ? Thats a bit harsh . One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Go back many years in history and have a look at the land allocated to the Palestinians originally and look at the land they have now .

      • DGM says: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
        Maybe; but neither should get a “peace prize”. A freedom fighter identifies military targets to reduce the military might of the enemy. A terrorist specifically creates terror hence the name. They are not the same kind of thing merely by different names.

  13. “So you have to convince the people who vote.”
    And the best way to do this is to INSULT them. Or maybe it is not the best way…

    • And the Israelis have not created terror in Gaza? Have you seen the dead children in there hundreds , blown to pieces and burnt by white phosphorus by the IDF. Yes the Palestinians fire black powder rockets with no warhead at Israel . They are nearly worse than useless , even the IDF admits this , but what else have they to protest the gradual loss of their land. The US certainly does not try and stop it and in fact vetoes in the UN all attempts at stopping anything the Israeli’s wish to do and gives them 5 billion dollars over seas aid per year .

  14. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,”
    How is this schema any different at all from Paul Erlich’s falsified Apocalypticism? But hey, aren’t we always grateful anyway whenever a full blown neurosis intersects with a Business Plan which also promises to lead us proles back to the Garden?
    Right now, though, I’ve got to go hitch up the Horse and Buggy so that I can get to the Dentist in time for placement of my new wooden teeth….while they still exist!

  15. Has anyone here read the entire Ipcc assessment as I have? I never seen such a long document contain such little information. I don’t believe there was any definate information. It almost seems like it was written by lawyers. It seems whatever the scientists wrote was taken out or tactically altered to avoid problems.

      • I have read it too (AR4), and Charlie is right. For example, the IPCC report explains the mechanism whereby CO2 warms the planet, right? Wrong. There is not one sentence anywhere in the IPCC report. Not even a simple basic statement. The report is a stunning exercise in bias and obfuscation.

        • Agree – Even in the Contribution from Working group I on the scientific basis there is no explanation of the mechanism. Nor is there any attempt to deduct implications or test the hypothesis. The assessment is not scientific at all.

    • Somewhere there is a video clip of someone summarising how and why the IPCC is the way it is.
      The IPCC was not set up, nor were its terms of reference so crafted, as to engage into any discussion as to the reality or not of ‘man made climate change’.
      No, the IPCC was set up with a mandate solely to determine the likely effects and policy implications of man made climate change, not to question its existence, and 97% of all the work that goes on in ‘climate change” science is based on the assumption that man made climate change is a clear and present danger.
      In sales we called this the ‘assumptive close’ technique. Instead of trying to persuade the customer to buy, you immediately started discussing the price. By engaging in a mutual worldview where the sale was assumed, you hoped to deny him the opportunity to reverse out of a sale.
      This same technique was used when mounting several enquiries into things awry in politics. By restricting the terms of reference to such enquiries to that which will be favourable to the desired outcome you can announce that the matter has been subject to an enquiry, and nothing untoward was found.
      “The effect of a 10°C rise in sea temperatures wouold be disastrous on the supply of British Fish and Chips.”
      Yeah, but what is the likelihood of a 10°C rise in sea temperatures? Oh that is ultra vires to my investigations. I merely assume that it will happen because 97% of other scientists involved in examining the effects of climate change of the man made persuasion, haven’t actually questioned whether it will happen, because that’s ultra vires for them too, and, indeed, beyond their sphere of competence to question.

      • One place to look to understand what IPCC is, and what it isn´t, is in the principles governing IPCC.
        These principles are given in the document: PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK.
        The revision history of that document is a clear indication that the document can be regarded to hold the fundamental principles for the Panel. The document was first approved in 1998 and latest amendment was in 2013.
        Paragraph 1 :
        “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … shall concentrate its activities …. on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.”
        Here is an extract from Wikipedia that will help to understand this better: “The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” .. is an international environmental treaty .. The objective of the treaty is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
        Hence the following will be a legitimate interpretation of Paragraph 1:
        “The panel shall concentrate its activities on actions in support of stabilizing the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.
        Obviously, the principles does not nourish a culture of systematic scrutiny or attempts to falsify parts of the theory about anthropogenic warming. It is also evident that principles does not enforce any robust scientific principles on IPCC.

    • The threat of the deliberate corruption of language was well understood by George Orwell. He objected the over – complex sentences, excessive use of long, unrecognizable and unnecessary terms plus inaccurate and vague explanations. He called it “Newspeak” and said that it was used as a shield by the political elite to distort and hide truths and so confound the masses.

  16. Apparently physicist Gross needs some lectures in hydrology. Glaciers do NOT contribute to runoff, it’s the annual snow melt and the low level rainfall.

  17. “It’s like in the 1950s when people didn’t know what happened if you smoked one pack of cigarettes per day – but the lung cancer rate was rising so rapidly that something had to be done.”
    Yes, and In 2015, we apparently don’t know what the effects of CO2 are – but the biosphere keeps booming – vegetative health of the planet improving – plant growth, crop yields and world food production rising so rapidly that something has to be done?
    Open your eyes and look at what CO2 is actually doing.
    Increasing CO2 feeds MORE people. The slight warming has been BENEFICIAL.
    This isn’t cigarette smoke. CO2 isn’t pollution. Take a step back into the real world(leaving models and speculative theories aside for a moment) and do an authentic check with life on this planet. It will tell you that CO2 at 400 ppm is better for life than when it was at 280 ppm and is asking(with it’s positive response to the increase) for more CO2.
    When was the last time that somebody smoked a pack of cigarettes/day for 30 years and it caused them to grow 20% healthier?

    • “CO2 at 400 ppm is better for life than when it was at 280 ppm ”
      Tell that to the families of the people in Pakistan and India where thousands of families have lost loved ones to the latest heatwave. Or to the shrimp fisherman in the US who are struggling at the moment. Good for life huh?

      • I suppose you can show us that this particular heat wave was exacerbated by human CO2 somehow?

      • “simon
        July 3, 2015 at 7:58 pm
        Or to the shrimp fisherman in the US who are struggling at the moment.”
        Couldn’t possibly be any other reason eh? Some sort of infection/virus, actual pollution/runoff from farms, overfishing? No! It *has* to be the addition of ~3% CO2 to the ~400ppm/v CO2 total.
        And lets not forget, MOST of those lost in Pakistan over Ramadan recently were lost because water is restricted or even forbidden during the Holy month. Lets not get facts in the way of a good rant eh Simon?

      • Why dont you tell that to the people who were able to eat, thanks to a 20% increase in plant life’s productivity?
        thousands of families, in a world populated by BILLIONS of people.

      • from the Times of India…
        Most of those killed by heat-related conditions including dehydration and heat stroke have been in the southern states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, where 100 people died just on Thursday as temperatures hovered about 43 degrees Celsius
        Even the poorest people in Australia don’t die when the temperature hits 43 degrees C.
        Sweat evolved for evaporative cooling: water and a small amount of air flow is all you need to survive the heat.
        What are they doing wrong in India?

      • @Khwarizmi, what are they doing wrong in India? Corruption, mismanagement, lack of infrastructure, poor transport, etc.

      • So the India is poorly governed in many ways – but they are extremely good at attributing the sole cause of deaths to heatwaves. And, how do the know that old people at the end of their life is not part of the numbers?

      • simon sez: “Tell that to the families of the people in Pakistan…”
        Consider it told to the people of Pakistan that have internet.
        “thousands of families have lost loved ones to the latest heatwave.”
        And more still lost to winter cold lacking fuel.
        “Or to the shrimp fisherman in the US who are struggling at the moment.”
        If they have internet they have been told. I am a bit curious why you have singled out shrimp fisherman as being the only, or representative, for anyone struggling at the moment.
        “Good for life huh?”
        Yes. Carbon dioxide is essential for plants and ultimately for animals. Plants cannot live on much less than 280 ppm. What do you consider optimum and why do you consider it so?

        • Joel D. Jackson “Which explains why all the plants died over 300,000 years ago.”
          Fortunately for us they left descendants.
          All plants die. So do all people. I suspect you are trying to make a less obvious point.

      • A chart extrapolating homo heidelbergensis climate from Vostok glacier is hilarious from metrology point of view even if it had error margins.
        Glacier is not a time capsule. It’s a useless proxy for extrapolating atmospheric gases and temperature hundreds of thousands of years ago.
        The weak hydrogen bonds in water are hardly sufficient to rigidify ice like a crystal. Ice remains amorphous, a bit like glass. Thus, it seems to me that the glacier gas concentration changes as a function of time mostly due to temperature and depth/pressure variations on the spot. Unless, of course, someone can provide convincing evidence on the contrary.

      • Simon,
        It was noted that the lack of proper air conditioning has been a contributing factor and also that it is their month of Ramadan whereby, they fast not just from food but from water also. This is why you have so many deaths there. Not because anthro. Co2 has been partly responsible for an aprox. .6*C rise in a conceptual global average temp. over the last 150 years.
        This is what is so annoying about the whole scam of Global warming. There is nothing happening today, that hasn’t happened in the past. There have always been heatwaves, floods, droughts, storms, rising and falling temperatures, more ice and less ice, sea levels up and down. Alarmists think they have just made these discoveries recently. At any given time you can point to a regional weather event and claim it’s evidence of CAGW. But evidence is not always proof. Shifting from one thing to another is the proverbial pea under the shell game. The hypothesis is that anthro. Co2 will cause temperatures to rise with catastrophic consequences. We have run that experiment over the past 18+years. Co2 levels have risen but temperatures have remained flat. That should be the end of that notion. Why isn’t it? I’m sure there is all sorts of alarmist reasoning with very plausible explanations why this dead horse deserves a good flogging.(pun intended), but nobody is buying it. Not voluntarily anyway.
        I wonder if the billions of dollars that are pumped into this CAGW scam, were invested in the broader picture of the Earth’s changing climate, in a more open and honest quest for discovery, where scientists could work together with open debate. Differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of research openly discussed with the purpose of advancing our understanding of the complex issues. Take the political influence out and let Nature take her course. What are the chances of that happening? Probably none. So how does this game play out. They keep moving the pea about, and we say they are cheating. They keep taking our money and we keep playing in the hope that in the end we will win it all back. Where will the next heatwave show up? or any other regional weather event. If they define the rules, and the only rule is, whatever happens next, they were right even when they’re wrong, then we will continue through disaster after disaster full in the knowledge that it’s all our fault. Well, maybe not all of us, but it would have been nice if the people in India had proper cooling facilities, maybe some of them would have survived.

      • What are they doing wrong in India?
        Thousands of water tankers were delivering supplies to more than 4,000 villages and hamlets facing acute water shortage in the central state of Maharashtra, state water department officials said.
        water shortages.are cannot be cured by spending billions to reduce CO2 emissions. they are cured by adding infrastructure, which means spending billions on water supplies instead..

      • In Pakistan Ramadam involves the end half of June and the beginning half of July . All Muslims must not drink or eat between the hours of 4.15 am and 7.15 PM (in Pakistan approx) everyday for 30 days. So without water for 15 hours a day in 43oC weather , pure lunacy !! How can people work in that situation ?? I assume they try and hence the high death rate?? Towards the end of this torture I think dehydration of the tissues would be critical and it takes time to rehydrate even if you can drink as much as you want.
        And every year India experiences severe heat waves in summer, this year is a little more severe than normal because of Monsoon delays , dry weather ,high humidity and rain more south than usual and most significantly 2015 El-Nino. Also remember India has a population of 1.252 billion so the 2500 that died , extremely tragic that it is , is a very very small proportion of the total Population .0000199%. Far more concerning to me would be the terrible suicide number in India last year which was 243,661 , that’s 1 suicide every 2 minutes .

  18. 30/65ths of Nobel prize winners supported the document. Somehow I don’t expect that to be highlighted.

  19. The reason these 65 Nobel Laureates neglected to put their names on the 65th Lindau Meeting was due to embarrassment but it’s not what you think. You see, they’re actually together as a somewhat secretive support group. The embarrassment and secrecy are because of societal disapproval but it’s really sort of unfair because it’s not their fault.
    I’ll explain. Now, it’s really sort of a long, twisted, and sordid tale. I became familiar with this malady over 35 years ago. I had a young female coworker who persisted in telling her young male coworker, me, every single excruciating (to me) detail of her gynecologist appointments. Every single detail, right down to the size of the tools necessary for the examination. Can you imagine the restraint required to keep my hands above, and not below, the drawing table I was seated at? And, to hold the table down as it was raising into the air underneath my lap?
    Now, does anybody, anywhere, really think it was really necessary for this she-devil to tell her formerly virile 25 year old coworker the actual size and description of the gleaming, hard, smooth, elongated, surgical stainless steel tools that the gynecologist was deftly manipulating in his hands as he examined …
    The best part was that this coworker of mine was married. Oh, but not just married; married to a former football player, a tackle, a big tackle, a jealous big tackle who was probably responsible for the mysterious disappearances of, shall we say, several competitors.
    Now, I know what you’re all thinking: nobody could possibly be so cruel as to do to a coworker what this coworker was doing to me. I thought so too, which is why I concluded that she merely teased, tantalized, titillated, and tortured me with these vivid descriptions solely for the purpose of disseminating (uh, maybe I should use a different word) medical information.
    So, when she told me that couples should refrain from s•e•x lest the baby be born with a black eye I took it as a serious piece of medical advice. And, ever since, I’ve relayed this advice to every pregnant young woman I’ve encountered. And, I’m pleased to say that at all the maternity wards I’ve been through I have yet to encounter a baby with a black eye.
    Needless to say, it would not be the baby’s fault if it did have a big shiner, but there’s no denying that the rarity of the condition would probably lead to rejection and the trauma that would result.
    And, herein lies the reason for the support group for those 65 Nobel Laureates; the reason for neglecting to attach their names to the Lindau Meeting; the reason for wishing to remain under the radar; and (particularly) the absence of Michael Mann’s name from the list. They don’t wish to be stigmatized.
    You see, they weren’t just born with black eyes. They were born with concussions.

  20. Which should prove once and for all that even if you have a scientific mindset which makes you able to achieve scientific results within one field you can be totally ignorant within any other field.
    Imagine the pressure there must have been to sign the declaration on climate change. There was a total of 65 laureates present. Over 30 signed the declaration.
    What is really worth noting is the scientific integrity of those who did not sign the declaration.
    A quote by Karl Popper from “The logic of scientific discovery” might be appropriate:
    “We may now return to a point made in the previous section: to my thesis that a subjective experience, or a feeling of conviction, can never justify a scientific statement, and that within science it can play no part except that of an object of an empirical (a psychological) inquiry. No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? Can any statement be justified by the fact that Karl Raimond Popper is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.”
    It is really frightening that 30 so called scientists signed the declaration.
    I can understand that it is kept secret who signed the declaration.
    Those who did not signed must feel really bad about it being secret who signed.

    • “We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.”
      It must have been a trap.
      More than 30 nobel laureates fell right into it.
      But the again the Nobel prize statutes does not require of the nominees that they endorse any particular scientific method, that they have scientific integrity or that they have a spine.

      • Science or Fiction,
        That sentence stuck out like a sore thumb to me too. They admit to being unqualified to evaluate the science, but believe in the integrity of the scientific method as practiced by the IPCC.
        It strikes me as if they’re saying something like, ‘I’m not a medical doctor, although I played one as a boy. However, I have strong confidence in the integrity of the guy over there with the rattles, who will treat your dengue fever with a few chants.’

    • So the consensus there was under 50% while under peer pressure? That’s kind of miserable in a couple of ways.

    • Of course – not all Nobel laureates are scientists in any form – from the statutes:
      “The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

    • Science or Fiction, thanks for the link to Popper’s book. Isn’t it ironic that Popper chose the following quote by Lord Acton (I assume the 3rd Baron Acton) in the prefaces to his book:
      There is nothing more necessary to the man of science than its history, and the logic of discovery . . . : the way error is detected, the use of hypothesis, of imagination, the mode of testing.
      The eighth child of the 3rd Baron Acton is none other than Professor Edward Acton who became deeply embroiled in the Climategate affair at the University of East Anglia where he was the Vice-Chancellor. Acton was humiliated as a result of Climategate by being required by the UK Information Commissioner to sign an undertaking stipulating that in future the university should deal with Freedom of Information requests appropriately.

  21. Speaking of Mann, have they finished with disclosure in the Mann-Styne lawsuit/counter-lawsuit? I wonder of Mann might be having a change of heart after seeing the AIDS researcher get prison time for doctoring data on government funded research.

  22. I’ve gotta display my Michael Mann religious bumper sticker again:
    Follow Me to…
    Model Fellowship of Mann
    Church of the Omnipotent Greenhouse in Carbon
    “Believe or be prosecuted.”

  23. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change
    Having been told many times by climate scientists that my opinion is irrelevant because I am not a climate scientist, I must advise that the same standard applies to you. Your document signed by last than 1/2 of your group is irrelevant.

  24. No need for a meeting. Why didn’t they just email their signatures if they’re so worried all this? They could have donated the saved money to do some good.

    • they have this meeting every year. It is an important event in the scientific community. The declaration was signed on the last day.
      Michael Mann was not at the meeting, since it was targeted towards scientists. The one laureate each from literature and peace prize were there rather like honored guests.

  25. “If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the declaration continues.
    Right then, let’s do some major genocide so we can save these poor souls.

    • Apologies for talking to myself in public, but are there any groups or individuals that are now addressing such potential problems ? … or are we just stuck with luvvy luvvies, do gooders and f-wits ? … and rich capitalists who spend their non-working lives telling everyone they’re lefties, out of embarrassment for their accumulation of riches ??

      • I thought I was the only one with that observation. I find the phonieness of modern western society frightening. I thought I was mostly alone with that thought. Sort of like Holden Caulfield.

      • the phonieness of modern western society
        political correctness in action. freedom of speech no longer includes the right to say what you think. instead it must be sanitize so that no one is offended. which means you have no freedom of speech, because no matter what you say, someone somewhere will be offended.

  26. “Altogether, the laureates are cautiously optimistic, for instance when they think about the US-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change last November. “It shows that we can move forward in the divide between developing and developed nations,” Smoot explained.”
    Yeah – this is what Mr li said quite recently:
    “China’s carbon dioxide emissions will peak by around 2030 and China will work hard to achieve the target at an even earlier date,” Mr Li said in a statement after meeting with French President Francois Hollande.
    He´s really brilliant. 🙂
    He also makes some others look quite silly. 🙂

  27. The sex ratio of this group is similar to that of the Smurfs’ village. (Poor Smurfette.)
    And like the Smurfs, they’re all the same colour.

  28. Steven Chu is either a scientific or moral retro-bate, if he can in one breath encourage the Obama/China climate deal, where China gets a green light on CO2 emission until 2030, while encouraging drastic cuts by of other lessor emitters in the Mainau Declaration.

  29. I noticed they didn’t invite Dr. Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois @ Urban-Champaign either. Until April, 2015, he also stated to the world on his website that he was a “Nobel Laureate” until he was caught inthe error of his ways and corrected it.

    • The Nobel prize is so laughable now, that I suggest everyone should claim they are a Nobel Laureate on their website to further degrade what little specialness is left in it.

      • noaaprogrammer,
        Love it! I’m tempted to start signing as ‘H.R., Nobel Laureate.’
        ‘noaaprogrammer, Nobel Laureate’ See? Kinda’ has a nice ring to it. And just wait until it starts getting attached to the endless supply of cute kitten pictures. A Google search on “Nobel Laureate” would become completely useless.

  30. Try as they might, they just can’t convince ~ 50-70 percent of the population to fall for every scary story run up the pole anymore.
    We all survived Y2K, and the world hasn’t warmed since.
    Good news don’t sell, but it is ain’t it ?

  31. This seems sort of odd … but the names of the signers seems to be a secret.
    I didn’t have any difficulty finding them.
    Maybe someone else here has responded to this already but I haven’t read the comments.

    Peter Agre
    Michael Bishop
    Elizabeth Blackburn
    Martin Chalfie
    Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
    Steven Chu
    James Cronin
    Peter Doherty
    Gerhard Ertl
    Edmond Fischer
    Walter Gilbert
    Roy Glauber
    David Gross
    John Hall
    Stefan Hell
    Serge Haroche
    Jules Hoffmann
    Klaus von Klitzing
    Harold Kroto
    William Moerner
    Ferid Murad
    Ei-Ichi Negishi
    Saul Perlmutter
    William Phillips
    Richard Roberts
    Kailash Satyarthi
    Brian Schmidt
    Hamilton Smith
    George Smoot
    Jack Szostak
    Roger Tsien
    Harold Varmus
    Robin Warren
    Arieh Warshel
    Robert Wilson
    Torsten Wiesel

    You can verify the list for yourself:
    – Go to http://www.lindau-nobel.org
    – If necessary click the ‘Home’ tab at top left just to be sure you’re on it.
    – ‘Mainau Declaration 2015’ is currently first on the list underneath.
    – Click the down arrow on its panel.
    – Scroll down to ‘Signatories’ and click the corresponding down arrow.

    • The list doesn’t include affiliation or discipline of the signatories, information without which it is just a list of names. Affiliations are important because they speak to political bias and discipline is important because it speaks to expertise in the field in question. If they want to rest on their credibility as scientists, they should at least tell us which of them have backgrounds in physics and which in biology. These facts too speak to credibility.
      That less than half their number signed at all, and that they don’t declare their full affiliation and discipline suggests the list is just for show.

      • ANythng from a meeting like tis s purely ‘just for show.” to cover themselves with indescribable glory.

      • well, if you are suspicious, you can find all that information online, on the lindau-nobel.org even, the same website that released the declaration.

    • Just look at how the (mis)pronunciation of some of those surnames is close to words in a sentence like:
      Agree, gross hell warmus weasels.
      Sorry, they had no control over what surname they were born under – just like they have no control over the climate – but lending their signatures will give them a good feeling.

    • Let me see if I get this right.
      First they work hard, all of their lives, and is against all odds awarded the Nobel prize.
      Then they suddenly sign a declaration stating:
      “We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.”
      Thereby proving that they do not have respect and understanding of scientific integrity.
      This looks more like a test to sort out those who were really worthy of the Nobel prize.
      Those on this list seems to have failed the test.

  32. ‘Following on from the latest climate policy resolutions adopted by the G7 states and the environment- and climate-oriented encyclical “Laudato si’” issued by Pope Francis’
    So now it’s 97% of scientsts and the Pope!

  33. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs” And these guys got nobel prizes? There is 65 million $$ standing on that podium and not one of them gives a …. , you fill in the blanks, oh that gives me a thought, how can these blanks even get a prize? Oh wait in the liberal universe everybody gets a prize.

  34. Perlmutter and Schmidt signed off on this? And George Smoot?
    I am dismayed. More than that, I feel somewhat embarrassed, for some reason.

  35. ……The document speaks clearly of overpopulation. That is, and has been for a long time, the principle fear of the educated leftist. ……
    Documents like this, and the Pope’s encyclical, rarely are the work of the signatories. This reads like the erudite version of “Limits to Growth”.
    Even in the first edition of that book, they were invoking the possibility of CO2…

  36. Declaration hangs on a part of a single dubious sentence:
    “Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase..”
    predictions – are not evidence
    climate models – are not evidence
    very likely – not evidence but a subjective opinion
    I also noticed that (by accident or design) Nobel laureate, the UK’s leading AGW advocate
    Sir Paul Maximus Nurse (president of the Royal Society) is absent from the list.

  37. Chu is the genius who said it would be good for the world if the price of gasoline went up to $8 per gallon. Of course, the brilliant fool himself won’t feel any pain from that, Chu is rich. And he obviously either doesn’t care in the slightest if the poor can’t feed their kids because the price of gas is through the roof, or he never even considered the entirely predictable outcomes of his asinine plan … and these folks claim they have the moral high ground?
    They have lost their moral compass entirely. If ever there were a collection of idiot savants specially designed to prove Feynmann correct, this is obviously it.
    … Feynmann famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”, and this bunch of Nobel Prize winners just proved that beyond doubt.

    • Chu is preaching water, then turns it into wine and drinks it himself. At least he is a brilliant hypocrite.

    • 30 elitists who fly halfway around the world to a posh resort island and then make a proclamation stating that the peons have to make sacrifices.

      • You actually have to drive 100 km on the Autobahn to Lindau from Munich. Lovely drive, done it myself. Stayed on the Island. Wonderful place, but very far out of the way..

  38. Let’s see. 65 Nobel laureates attended the conference, but only 30 signed the climate change statement? Sounds like a minority to me. Sounds like 35 of them were “deniers”. And how many living Nobel laureates are there out there total? Could make the math even worse. I think we’re burying the lede here.

  39. Interestingly, four of the five nobellists are physicists, though none of them would claim to be an expert in climatology. Still their stance must count for something.

    • Why must it? All they’ve done is put their stamp of approval on an ideology being presented as “science”. They are merely educated fools, and they can be the worst.

    • Their stance only counts as an appeal to authority. Logical fallacies don’t count for much.
      The fact which speaks loudest is that 35 of the laureates didn’t sign this tabloid release.

  40. If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy…

    They’d better take care about the squandering of food.
    That would be an intelligent solution rather than delivering a non-solution to a non-problem.

  41. Lack of integrity is the issue here, most of these people will not be physicists, or will be the wrong kind of physicist (those who study “simple” systems), so can’t possibly know what they are talking about. They have lent their status as Nobel winners to a political cause at the expense of scientific integrity.

  42. It looks like all the news coverage is going to leave out the inconvenient truth that only 36 of the 65 attendees signed the declaration. That’s only 56%.
    Not surprisingly, Pierre’s post notes “At the end Schmidt says that U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Royal Society President Paul Nurse played key roles in authoring the Mainau manifesto.”
    Please look for coverage in your local media and note in the comments the 36 of 65 signers.

  43. The “moral bound duty as a scientist” is to scientific thruth. Not to the whim of the age.

  44. We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.

    I call BS. If you had REAL deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process, you’d be kicking some asses at CRU, NOAA, AGU, Royal Society, Nat. Geo. etc.

  45. The statement on glaciers attributed to Stephen Chu is incredulous. How can someone that smart say something so devoid of scientific logic? Glaciers are likely to shrink due to warming no matter what the cause. Until the climate science community demonstrates a direct connection between CO2 and temperature, denier accusations are empty words.

  46. Who else did not sign?
    Yesterday I sent Ivar Giaever, winner of a Nobel prize in Physics, asking: “Did you sign it?” He replied almost immediately: “If I had been at the session I would have spoken up against it.”
    He, however, did attend a prior meeting where he spoke at length on “climate change”.
    Go to
    David Douglass
    Dept of Physics
    University of Rochester USA

    • this doesn’t make any sense to me. There are thirty-something people trying to convince you climate change is a serious issue that we should and can influence. Then there is one person saying the opposite. You feel that persons opinion is more valid? And yes, it is an opinion, Ivar Giaver does not have any expertise in climate change, like most of the other scientists.
      He tells you what you’d like to hear. And you like to hear what he tells you. None of this has anything to do with science.

      • Suzee, thanks for your thoughts. You seem confused about a couple of things.
        First, science is not settled by a vote. When fifty people wrote a pamphlet saying Einstein was wrong, his comment was on the order of “Why do they need fifty, when one would be enough”.
        And of course, at the end the fact that it was fifty to one against Einstein meant absolutely nothing about his work … why not?
        Because science is not a democracy where the number of votes makes a difference.
        Second, these thirty-something people are not trying to convince us. They are trying to frighten us, which is a very different thing.
        Third, as far as I know, I don’t think any of them has any experience with analyzing the climate. Note that I’m not just saying that climate is not their field of specialty. I’m saying that for far too many of them, they have little knowledge of climate of any kind.
        Finally, what many of us think is true about the climate has little to do with what we “like to hear”. Many people participating in this forum have put in thousands and thousands of hours of study of the subject. Our decisions are based on the examination of hundreds of datasets and the consideration of the various ideas and theories put forward by dozens of scientists.
        Your idea that we base our opinions on either what the Nobel folks said or what Ivar Giaver said is … well, a long way from reality.
        And your idea that we should pay attention to the babblings of some people who are very knowledgeable about other things but clueless about climate is, sadly, far too typical of what passes for science these days. Sorry, suzee, but Steven Chu is a brilliant scientist who is also unable to convert celsius to fahrenheit, famously claiming that a temperature change of 3°C is equal to a temperature change of 11°F … nice try, Steve.
        So no, suzee, I won’t be getting my climate clues from Steven, even if he were to get three more Nobel prizes for physics. In climate, he’s clueless … so why on earth are you paying the slightest attention to him?
        Bear in mind, suzee, that a Nobel Prize is not transferrable—by that I mean that getting a Nobel in physics doesn’t make a man any smarter about chemistry. In fact, given the astounding focus and specialization implied in the Nobel Prize work, it is quite probable that if a man gets a Nobel in physics, he knows LESS about chemistry than the average physicist
        And by the same token, he very probably knows LESS about the climate as well—when you are doing your Nobel work you don’t have time to dabble in other fields.
        So I ask you, suzee, in all seriousness—why should we pay the slightest attention to people who are clueless about climate, simply because they know an amazing amount and have great insights about some entirely different field of study? Does that qualify them to pronounce on climate in your world?
        Best regards,

    • Was that given at the just concluded conference? If so, I’m surprised at the number of people who signed the proclamation. Then again, the talk was aimed at the students, not the nobel laureates, so perhaps few of them saw it.

  47. Is this same person ?
    left Sir Paul Nurse 2012, right person in the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting’s group photo
    If so, things are getting curiouser and curiouser since Sir Paul Maximus Nurse is the UK’s leading AGW advocate and also president of the Royal Society.
    If so, why is he not among the signatories?

    • Evidently not, apologies to Sir Paul.
      Attendees and not Signatories:
      Werner Arber
      Françoise Barré-Sinoussi
      Eric Betzig
      Bruce A. Beutler
      Aaron Ciechanover
      François Englert
      Albert Fert
      Ivar Giaever
      Theodor W. Hänsch
      Avram Hershko
      Robert Huber
      Brian D. Josephson
      Jean-Marie Pierre Lehn
      Rudolph A. Marcus
      Hartmut Michel
      Luc Montagnier
      Erwin Neher
      Ryoji Noyori
      Venkatraman Ramakrishnan
      Carlo Rubbia
      Bert Sakmann
      Brian P. Schmidt
      Dan Shechtman
      Oliver Smithies
      Wole Soyinka
      Susumu Tonegawa
      Martinus J. G. Veltman
      Klaus von Klitzing
      Kurt Wüthrich
      Ada E. Yonath
      Harald zur Hausen

  48. It is a waste of time to talk of climate science with these people. I looked up what qualified each of the seventy (only 65 showed up) participating Nobelists for the prize they got. There was obviously not one in the lot who was qualified to speak on global warming, much or to write about it. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, (a German newspaper), ran an interview with Schmidt on Friday. Schmidt was the organizer of the Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change. The interview bears the title “The evidence that must not be distorted.” Some valuable nuggets of fact emerged. For one thing, not all the participants in the conference signed the declaration. Only 56 percent signed it, and that is not a consensus as Schmidt has tried to say elsewhere. At the end of the interview Schmidt admitted that U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Royal Society President Sir Paul Nurse played key roles in authoring the Mainau manifesto. So that is who wrote it. Now we know: this declaration is a result of combined lobbying efforts by the White House and the Royal Society to turn the Nobelist meeting into a propaganda platform for pseudo-science. No doubt in preparation for the upcoming December conference in Paris. Even so, they could not get a consensus and were able to hoodwink only slightly more than half of the participants. The ones who did sign certainly were not qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. Which goes to show that even Nobelists are like ordinary people when they are not working on their specialty.

    • “Nobelists are like ordinary people …..”
      Especially in mature years of life, enjoying gourmand lunch with selection of excellent wines, even I might have signed it.

  49. Those who signed were those in attendance at this years Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting. Michael Mann was not there, hence he did not sign.

Comments are closed.