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
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:
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Mainau-Declaration-2015-EN.pdf.
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.
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.
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.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03360/collage_cristie_3360445k.jpg
Oh man that picture is hysterical
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03360/3rd-place_3360483k.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/11710515/The-15-most-terrible-sporting-trophies.html?frame=3360536
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:
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
“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.”
There goes that one to – Only 2 out of 65 participants have won the price within peace, literature or economic.
The rest – 63 – has actually won the prize within Physics, chemistry and medicine or physiology.
List with filters:
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/laureates/meeting-2015#page=1&sort=2&opt=asc&pagesize=3
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.
The undertaking signed by Acton is in a comment by me on this page:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/1/18/actons-blind-eye.html
Might it have been that the Lord Acton quoted by Popper – the one who must have turned in the grave by the actions of Professor Edward Acton was: John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902) ?
Could be; he certainly produced a profusion of other quotes. Edward Acton would be his great-grandson.
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.
What? No Al Gore, Nobel Prize Winner who shared the peace prize with the IPCC?
No it did not snow , so he was not there .
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.”
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.
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.
“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.
“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. 🙂
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.
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.
I noticed they didn’t invite Dr. Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois @ur momisugly 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.
:o)
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 ?
“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.
Signatories:
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.
Why no list of the dissenters?
http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/laureates/meeting-2015#page=1&sort=2&opt=asc&pagesize=3
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.
They have a blog on it too. You can leave a comment here:
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/the-mainau-declaration-2015-on-climate-change/
Just keep it nasty.
I posted what I regard to be a reasonable and decent comment two days ago – it is still in moderation!
Comments have come through now. Be prudent. Show better judgement than the 36.
‘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!
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.
‘scientsts’ is short for scientists by the way folks.
Perlmutter and Schmidt signed off on this? And George Smoot?
I am dismayed. More than that, I feel somewhat embarrassed, for some reason.
……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…
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.
As is Robert May and the astronomer royal!
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.
w.
… 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..
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.
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.
Correction: 31 laureates didn’t sign…
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.