Scientists – we're on second notice: another 'warning to humanity' – popular science edition

From the UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY and the “Tweets are now citations” department comes this inane press release which seems more interested in promoting the “people are looking at it” meme than what’s in it.

Scientists’ warning to humanity ‘most talked about paper’

No. 6 top paper ever published since global Altmetric records began, first of similar age

Twenty-five years after the first ‘scientists’ warning to humanity’, a new report is continuing to gain momentum and is already the one of the most talked about papers globally since Altmetric records began.

The paper, World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice, has prompted speeches about the research in Israel’s Knesset and Canada’s BC Legislature, with signatories increasing with the specially formed Alliance of World Scientists.

This is the image being used to promote the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice and the same authors’ response letter. CREDIT Oliver Day, Oregon State University

The latest translation includes Polish, with universities set to discuss the recommendations later this month and a push by the University of Silesia for city-wide implementation.

Co-author at the University of Sydney Dr Thomas Newsome has helped the report go viral, which has prompted almost 9,000 Tweets. The paper is inspiring responses such as the publication of a friendly satirical high-profile “final warning”.

The paper’s cumulative score is currently in sixth place out of more than 9 million publications, since Altmetric started tracking attention to research more than six years ago.

Three letters in comment, as well as a response companion piece by the Warning authors publishes today in the peer-reviewed journal BioScience.

The response piece, “Role of Scientists’ Warning in shifting policy from growth to conservation economy”, highlights two key areas for action in policy and science:

1. Nobel Prize in Economics incorporating the limits of the biosphere – The Economic Sciences Prize Committee should give greater weight to externalised environmental limits.

2. Carbon pricing globally – already implemented or planned by some 42 countries and 25 states, provinces and cities but there is an urgent need for higher carbon prices.

“There are critical environmental limits to resource-dependent economic growth,” the authors state.

Lead author of the warning letter and new response paper, ecology Professor William Ripple at Oregon State University said: “Our scientists’ warning to humanity has clearly struck a chord with both the global scientific community and the public.”

The “second notice” warning paper has received an additional 4,500+ endorsements by scientists since it published in November 2017.

There are now approximately 20,000 expert endorsements and/or co-signatories to the paper online; signatures and donations are encouraged at Updates continue from co-author @NewsomeTM on Twitter.

The paper’s Altmetric of about 7100 is gaining ground on the top paper for 2016, former United States President Barack Obama’s review of the healthcare system, which accumulated a score of 8063 in four months; most of the top 100 of all time have an Altmetric below 6000.


The paper: The Role of Scientists’ Warning in Shifting Policy from Growth to Conservation Economy

We are pleased to see the three follow-up letters concerning our “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice” (Ripple et al. 2017). Each letter expresses a thoughtful, heartfelt response to our paper. We agree in how they describe the need to get more scientists into policymaking positions (Dror), to create a new global environmental ethic (Skubała), and to recognize economic growth as a major driver of environmental impacts (Pacheco et al.). The letters raise questions about how science interacts with society and how evidence-based reasoning can play an important role in creating a healthy relationship between humans and the biosphere.

We concur with Dror that getting scientists more politically active is important. This trend may have already started, with actions ranging from global marches for science to scientists’ running for and holding political office (Fairley 2017). One potential result of a new environmental ethic, as is suggested by Skubała, would be to recognize and accept that there are critical environmental limits to resource-dependent economic growth. In our article, we emphasize the need to “reassess the role of an economy rooted in growth” and urge revising our economy to “reduce wealth inequality” and “take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on the environment.” Our article also underscores the importance of stabilizing and gradually reducing the global population, which itself would be a significant contributor to ending economic growth (Victor 2010).

We agree with Pachecho and colleagues that transformative change is essential, whereby humanity abandons the pursuit of economic growth as the overarching guide to public policy. We need a new development paradigm to ensure that economies deliver well-being while respecting both social and planetary boundaries (Raworth 2017). Most helpful for this paradigm shift, both symbolically and pragmatically, would be for the scientist members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to insist that its Economic Sciences Prize Committee give greater weight to awarding prizes for economic theory that accounts for environment–economy interlinkages and feedback loops. If Nobel memorial prizes in economics were given to those drawing attention to economic drivers of environmental degradation and the well-being implications of degraded ecosystems, it would draw attention to problems with mainstream economic theory as well as encourage other economists and natural scientists to collaborate and to do more work in this area.

Another way to promote a global shift toward a conservation economy is, for example, to implement carbon pricing to mitigate climate change. Putting a price on carbon pollution has been shown to be a successful method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and driving investment into clean-energy technologies (World Bank et al. 2017). As an emerging global trend, some 42 countries and 25 states, provinces, and cities have implemented or scheduled to implement carbon-pricing mechanisms, with more jurisdictions considering implementing them in the future ( Despite this progress, accelerating the pace of action and significantly increasing the price on carbon soon will be necessary for carbon pricing to make a significant contribution to curbing climate change (World Bank et al. 2017).

Our world scientists’ warning article was signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries ( The original article has been translated into 17 different languages: Spanish, Portuguese, French, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Dutch, German, Telugu, Hindi, Swedish, Serbian, Italian, Hebrew, Turkish, Japanese, Catalan, and Korean versions of our original scientists’ warning article can be found in the supplemental material for this article. We wanted our paper to ignite a global conversation followed by action, and it has been successful in reaching many millions of people through these language translations, mass media, and social media ( For example, on Twitter alone, there have been more than 8000 tweets reaching up to 14,000,000 people. Content from the paper has also been read aloud on the floor of one of Canada’s provincial legislatures ( Although Dror notes that social, economic, and political change may not necessarily follow, the media discussions highlight the need to put human behavior at the center of a new environmental ethic. We are smart enough to solve these problems, as Skubała notes, but if humanity does not forcefully pursue the behavioral changes and policies we urge in our warning, the human and nonhuman suffering we warn about may multiply. An alliance among scientists, policymakers and influencers, faith/spiritual leaders, and the public will hopefully allow us to make the needed transformations. Already, we have seen examples of great conservation success when we work together to overcome environmental challenges (Sodhi et al. 2011). These conservation wins generate encouraging messages of optimism, helping garner much-needed public support to protect the Earth’s biosphere and create an environmentally sustainable future.

World Scientists’ Second Warning to Humanity: The Time for Change Is Now

Twenty-five years have passed, and humanity has received the second “Warning.” William Ripple, his co-authors, and more than 15 thousand scientists are concerned about the condition of our planet and that “humanity is not taking the urgent steps.” The real message from the warning is simple and dramatic: Soon it will be too late for us. It’s high time to wake up and start working. We are experiencing the sixth extinction event, and despite the great efforts of many scientists and educators, this critical message has not yet reached a significant part of society. It is a great shame that scientists are forced to write the warning a second time and that the environmental situation is becoming worse and worse. The scientific evidence that we have crossed boundaries is numerous and obvious. The problem is that many people do not believe scientists. Soon, we will see what humans will do with this most important message.

We are far from sustainability, and the situation is not much better than 25 years ago, when the first “Warning” was published. The Sustainable Society Index (SSI) integrates three components. In 2016, human well-being had the highest score (6.4) of the three well-being dimensions (environmental well-being and economic well-being amounted to 4.8 and 4.6, respectively). The total SSI has the value of 5.2, which means that the world is about halfway to full sustainability. The prospect of creating a sustainable society is still very distant, but we know what we need to do to achieve that goal. In the warning, we can find 13 wise, effective, and sometimes very courageous tips (e.g., promoting plant-based foods, counting hidden environmental costs, and increasing outdoor nature education) on what we must do to achieve sustainability.

I perceive the warning also as a call for a new global ethic. This was clearly highlighted in 1992 and is present in the current warning. The authors stress that it is high time to change our individual behaviors. It will be revealed whether we are truly moral beings. Many scientists are convinced that our human morality was inherited from our ancestors. Now, we will find out what we might do with this gift from the great apes.

Why didn’t the first warning reach humans? I am not sure whether the second warning will be accepted. Jane Poynter, a Biosphere 2 crewmember, emphasized that for the first time, she felt an integral component of the biosphere while taking part in the project. All or most of us do not literally feel we are part of the biosphere. As long as nature is seen outside us, separate from us, we will not be ready to accept the warning. How will the new world be if again humanity puts aside the second warning? My hope is that perhaps we are slow but we’re not stupid and that finally we will start treating Earth as our only home.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Lance Wallace

The first link to Altmetric takes you to Eurekalert, a AAAS website that informs you the link refers to a page that has moved. No help on locating it.

John harmsworth

I can’t find my garbage after I throw it out, either.

Hot under the collar

They should contact Flash Gordon immediately!

Mark from the Midwest

9,000 tweets … a single put return during the 2015 Utah – Oregon football game was responsible for 430,000 tweets.

Mark from the Midwest

Gary Pearse

and one Province – a social8st-green coalition government in Canada’s La La land.


Must be a living hell to be these people…..not only for their thinking…but all the competition for attention
What with BLM, metoo, on and on…..people are so tired of all this crap

Curious George

I can hardly wait for a third warning.
By the way, how much taxpayers money was spent on this nonsense?


How many Russians were involved in this divisive nonsense?

Jim Masterson

I can hardly wait for a third warning.
And the fourth, and the fifth, and the sixth, and so on.

Bryan A

This is your final warning
THIS is your Final warning
THIS IS your Final Warning
Oh forget it


I won’t lift an eyebrow until they announce that we are under “double secret probation”, then ill laugh.


This is about the 100th warning….they are just called it the 2nd so they don’t look like bigger morons…it’s unprecedented

Bryan A

Now now…They are being Super Silly-ous
Or Super Cerial

Here is your THIRD WARNING:
“These global warming alarmists are full of hot air.”
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all you know on earth, and all you need to know.”
– Keats


Mr. Masterson – I’m with you. Can’t wait for all the other last chances.
One of the things I like about Church: You can quit going, and you don’t have to listen to some ignoramus beat on the podium about what hell is like.
And… I am a Christian. I believe the Bible (for what it is intended – insight into the nature of God, not science). But most preachers just disgust me for their lack of knowledge, for their new commandments… for their condemnation of things that are encouraged in the Word, bu not in modern day American churches.
But enough. I forget his name, but he goes viral when he sees this stuff here. He insists all people think exactly like he does. No variations.

Altmetric. Is that at all similar to Post-Modern Science? Why don’t they just stick with real metric?

Greg Woods

Danger, danger, Will Robinson….


Voice Crying Out in the Darkness: Wolf! Wolf!! WOOLFF!!! WOOOOLLLLFFFF!!!!!!
(Dead silence, the scent of steak on a grill drifts by very slowly.) Hello? Anybody out there?


Now I’m waiting for them to say “Okay, this is your 3rd warning! I really mean it this time! DON’T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE!!!”

Gary Pearse

The 3rd warning: Don’t make me have to come in there! (not too far fetched)

I’m getting ads here for ‘cheap and simple electricity’ refering to wind and solar. Well, the regular lie as usual, as the electric network doesn’t work that way and I’m already ‘sponsoring’ these ‘low’ prices via tax …


Is this like “Double Secret Probation” of Animal House?



Another Club of Rome fiasco — gloom and doom, destruction right around the corner.
Of course we do need to focus more on non-wasteful, pragmatic approaches to resource management — we have always had to do so, and seldom have accomplished much except through innovation — new technologies replacing older, wasteful technologies.
These reports ignore history. NY State was once nearly entirely clear-cut of forests — cut for lumber, charcoal for cooking and industry, and to create farm and pastureland. Only a few thousand acres were spared. Today New York state is 63 percent forested — forests cover 18.9 million acres of its 30 million total acres. NY State regains 100,000 acres of forest a year — as pastureland and hay fields are abandoned to return to forest.
Wasteful cutting of forests to provide cooking and heating fuel was replaced by coal mining to provide for heating NY City and then by petroleum and then natural gas — now produced by fracking that can be accomplished by small-footprint natural gas wells.
There is plenty of room for improvement — most of that improvement is prevented, not facilitated, by government. Oddly, much of the needed improvement is blocked by groups demanding these improvements — off-beat mis-directed Green mandates driven by superstitious non-science.

Much of Pennsylvania was also clear cut of almost all of it’s forests. There is only a small area of virgin forests in western PA. Now most/much of PA is forested…

Gary Pearse

Kip I believe we are doing a pretty good job in the resource industries these days. I’m in mining and we in Canada are already endorsed by the UN for our policies and regulations. Some 35 permits are required to bring a mining/processing op into production. The environment, health and safety, public consultation with full disclosure of methods and processes and resource conservation are all front and center. Moreover, Canadian companies working abroad are obliged by law to employ the same standards as those governing domestic projects.
It is not well known that historically, of the world’s mining exploration budget of some 20billion annually, Canadian companies
acounted for over 75% of it. Australians took a leaf out of the Canuck playbook a decade ago and now we are neck and neck at about 40% each of the global budget.

Gary ==> Glad there is good news in the “frozen North”.

Alan Tomalty

There are real problems in the world like the fact that the worlds oceans are now a plastic garbage dump. I am sure you can name others like the threat of nanotechnology. BUT the greenies always seem to focus on the wrong ones like acid rain which turned out to be a non problem and the ozone hole another scam and global warming the biggest scam of all.

Alan ==> While plastics do not belong in the oceans, and feral plastics (and all other human-created trash) are an ongoing problem especially in the less-developed world, plastics that go into the oceans either 1) Sink to the bottom where they are either inert-ish in the detritus layer or 2) Break into ever smaller pieces and are consumed by bacteria and other microbes — virtually disappearing (this is referred to as the “missing oceanic plastic”).
See my several essays on the topic.

Bruce Cobb

So? 31,487 American Scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project. We win. Nyah, nyahnyah-nyah-nyah, nyah.

It isn’t just quality, it is also quantity. That petition was signed by people with degrees in physics, math and engineering (applied physics) who have the background to evaluate the data and physics associated with climate science. A brief walk through this petition reveals almost no people with physics backgrounds. Biologists, ecologists, zoologists, economists, etc galore. For the most part, people whining about what will happen if temps rise, but no expertise in predicting or quantifying if they actually will.

aaack! reverse quantity and quality in the above. More coffee before allowing fingers in contact with keyboard…

J Mac

RE: “…..transformative change is essential, whereby humanity abandons the pursuit of economic growth as the overarching guide to public policy. We need a new development paradigm to ensure that economies deliver well-being while respecting both social and planetary boundaries.”
Same old socialist pig oinking, with a millenial-age layer of lipstick smeared on. ‘Abandon capitalism. Embrace the ‘new’ paradigm….’
Reality check: Is the Venezuelan workers paradise ‘delivering well-being while respecting both social and planetary boundaries’?


… transformative change is essential, whereby humanity abandons the pursuit of economic growth …

That sounds wonderful. What the heck are they going to replace it with?
Similar to Churchill’s quote that:

Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is
the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. link

I would posit that capitalism is the worst form of economy that has ever been tried, except for all the others. Anyone who believes a planned economy can rescue us should be forced to take an education about all the crap that went on behind the Iron Curtain. Apparently Russia is still pretty non-functional. link

Tsk Tsk

No need to study history. A plane ticket to Venezuela is pretty cheap these days.


Tsk Tsk March 7, 2018 at 4:26 pm
No need to study history. A plane ticket to Venezuela is pretty cheap these days.

It’s too easy to put that down to one idiot.
History shows us that planned economies don’t work and market economies do. There is enough evidence to convince most open minded people.


The problem is that the promise of free stuff is sufficient to close most open minds.

Alan Tomalty

Growth was never the objective. The objective was the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was understood that any activity that prevented others from doing so did not fit the original tri purpose goal so therefore is not allowed. So anything that makes you happy, keeps you alive, and free AND doesn’t infringe these goals of others is the collective goal. So pollution would be an infringement. However CO2 is not a pollutant. If it can be shown that the world is running out of some commodity that makes you happy then it could be regulated so as to not run out. However i have yet to see any commodity that the world is in danger of running out of. Therefore limiting growth for growth’s sake is madness. The only real problem with growth is the world’s population. However as societies get richer they tend to have less babies. We are far from having too many people. If we approach a danger limit on people we can look at the problem later on. However we still have pollution priorities to look after. BUT again I repeat CO2 is not a pollutant.

World Bank et al. 2017

Ancient Scouse

Dragon Slayers ‘R Us…………..My god will this garbage never end. The world should have ended before now according to the “Experts”

CD in Wisconsin

Okay, so let me think….where have I heard this potential gloom-and-doom narrative before? Oh yes, in 1968. Fifty years ago this past January…Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb.”
In his Breitbard piece above, James Delingpole quotes Ehrlich in the book:
“…The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Delingpole goes on to say:
“…As Nicholas Vardy notes in this essay for the Oxford Club, Ehrlich’s ‘population bomb’ theory was a fail for the same reasons Thomas Malthus’s 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population was a fail:
‘Human ingenuity has always been successful in overcoming crises that once seemed inevitable.'”.
The list of end-of-world-gloom-and-doomers keeps getting longer with time. Somehow, they all end up seeming to have the same thing in common…..being wrong.


They keep telling us that one of these days, they are going to be right.
They also keep telling us that one of these days they will be able to get socialism to work.

Yeah, thanks for the “warning” but per capita food production over the last 25 years has been up in every region of the world. So I think we’ll pass on your “zero growth” plan.comment image?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip

Mumbles McGuirck

Why does the Alliance of World Scientists logo look like the Atlas Shrugged logo? The mission statements of the two are polar opposites. 😉


The Alliance of World Scientists logo has the earth floating above the “Scientist”, not touching the Scientist” arms which proves there is no connection whatsoever between the “Scientist” and the earth.


I guess they thought it would be too obvious if they called themselves “The Alliance of World Socialists”.

“We concur with Dror that getting scientists more politically active is important.”
Actually getting “scientists” more scientifically active is important.





Three outs and you strike.

Steve O

Yeah, yeah yeah. We have five years to:
1) Raise taxes, especially against bad things. And the rich.
2) Increase the power and reach of government over our lives and over industry
3) Transfer wealth from rich to poor


If we all just ignore it for another 5 years do we get a bonus prize?


Isn’t it already too late?
From their first warning in 1992: “No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished. “

old engineer

My thought exactly! In 2006 we had 100 months. It’s too late, We are all doomed. The warmist’s tried to save us, but we wouldn’t listen. The second warning is too late.


All of this angst was created by a bunch of CAGW Charlatans who have lied and duped the world into believing these claims of CAGW doom and gloom, based on nothing but a theory and a bastardized surface temperature chart.
A great evil has been perpetrated on the World by the people who created this CAGW fairy tale and continue to promote it to this very day.

Sorry for the apparent pedantry here but I think the distinction is an important one. I always object to this absurd nonsense being referred to as “a theory”. It is a hypothesis and a particularly stupid hypothesis at that. In order to be promoted to the exalted heights of theory it would need to be supported by solid repeatable evidence. It isn’t.


It isn’t even an hypothesis – it is merely a supposition.
And I’d think we’d need solid, objective, verifiable, repeatable evidence.


It’s not even a supposition. It’s a model.


Someone please let me know when they stop trying to scare us? The more they beat that dead horse, the less likely it is to move for them.
The article does kind of prompt me to start looking for farmers’ markets where I can get tomatoes in bulk for canning and small cucumbers for pickles this year. Last spring, some spilled sunflower seeds sprouted under the birdfeeder, so I let them grow to maturity by putting a wire fence around them and they grew quite tall with many, many branches and flower heads, attracting goldfinches and white-crowned sparrows, and I will do that again this year.
Looking forward to another lovely spring and summer, with bountiful produce in those markets and orchards. Strawberries, radishes, spring onions, summer squash, et cetera.
What is it with these doom-and-gloom people, anyway? If I didn’t know better (and I am so far uninformed about it), I would guess that they are suffering from a distinct disconnect from reality. I don’t know what other conclusion I can draw.

John G.

In liberal alternate reality land the situation is dire indeed!


When you hear some of the insanity coming out of the social engineering meeting in Edmonton with all of these supposedly scientists, there is no doubt that if acted on, it would bring about the collapse of civilization.


If it did collapse the civilization, would they consider that mission accomplished?


Some of them would for sure. As far as I’m concerned, I think they are criminally insane.

Peter Morris

In the 1980s, when I was in elementary school, we read a short story in our reader about how, by now, we’d all be living in domes because the air was so toxic, and we wouldn’t even know what sunglasses were because the pollution would block the sun from view. I’m fact that was the plot point of the story. A little girl was trying to locate some sunglasses for her grandfather.
Try as I might, I have yet to locate a single dome.
I submit it is these scientists who are out of touch with nature.

The worst case scenario is nigh.



Bruce Cobb


Jim, that’s such a bummer I missed the opportunity. Hilarious.


Turn over more carbon tax money or we’ll add more dire wording next time in the third and fourth warning.

We already have too much socialism here in the USA. It is time to revert back to capitalism to counter these “degrowthers”. I am not talking about Crony-Capitalism (government capitalism), I’m talking about LIBERTY = Free Market Capitalism which is how we got to the good lifestyle we have today. If you want to end up like Venezuela, follow this “degrowth” movement, and I am going to call them a name:
“lunkheads” from “Whose Afraid of Virginia Wolf”…


What most people call Crony-Capitalism, is using government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
Which is actually a form of socialism.

Rather than the term Sustainable/Sustainability, I prefer the term Synergetics, defined by Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). It is a term much more optimistic than Sustainability:

This is from R Buckminster Fuller’s book on Synergy, 1975. It explains pretty well to me that you cannot extract CO2 out of the atmosphere, by itself, and use it to explain warming or “climate change”:
“…106.00 Chemists discovered that they had to recognize synergy because they found that every time they tried to isolate one element out of a complex or to separate atoms out, or molecules out, of compounds, the isolated parts and their separate behaviors never explained the associated behaviors at all. It always failed to do so. They had to deal with the wholes in order to be able to discover the group proclivities as well as integral characteristics of parts. The chemists found the Universe already in complex association and working very well. Every time they tried to take it apart or separate it out, the separate parts were physically divested of their associative potentials, so the chemists had to recognize that there were associated behaviors of wholes unpredicted by parts; they found there was an old word for it__synergy.
107.00 Because synergy alone explains the eternally regenerative integrity of Universe, because synergy is the only word having its unique meaning, and because decades of querying university audiences around the world have disclosed only a small percentage familiar with the word synergy, we may conclude that society does not understand nature….”


I get catalogues with that warning all the time—”This is your last catalogue if you don’t order”. I think I’m on the third or fourth last warning with some of them. Constantly moving the goal posts just makes you look desperate and sad.

Rick C PE

When I was young and poor, I usually didn’t pay a bill until I got the second ‘final notice’. 🙂


“We concur with Dror that getting scientists more politically active is important.”
Didn’t we have a couple of trolls yesterday who were whining about us skeptics trying to politicize science?

I first misread this as “Scientists warming to humanity..” and thought we were making progress.


No such luck. There is no carbon tax money in that.


When will we begin to see some “evidence-based reasoning” in the Climate Change world?


It’s not going to happen because the evidence is moving farther away and the super El Nino was only a short respite.

Bruce Cobb

Uh-oh, it’s our “2nd notice”. There is no “3rd notice”. We get kicked off the planet. And it goes on our permanent record.

Tom in Florida

Until we get the actual “Eviction Notice”, who cares what they say.


I don’t think they would evict us, just make us drink hemlock then bury us in their garden as that would be a much more “Organic” solution to the problem of “Climate Deniers” and the hemlock might be optional.


humanity abandons the pursuit of economic growth as the overarching guide to public policy.

Humanity has already lived for many millennia in a world without economic growth. If we ever return to that situation we are not going to like it.

Peta of Newark

Singalong with Peta..
Predicting is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see.
It’s getting hard to be concerned
But it all works out.
It doesn’t matter much to me.
Let me take you down
Coz I’m going to…..
Cherrypick Fields, nothing is real
Nothing to get hung about
Cherrypick Fields forever
No one I think is in my tree
The temperature must be high or low
That is you can’t, you know, measure it
But it’s all right
That is, I think, it’s really bad




Long ago, in them there Olden Days, there was a radio station DJ in Chicago who would play Strawberry Fields then another song then back to SF, then another song, ad nauseum.
You picked the best possible analogy for the current dimwittedness. Now I wonder what the “science guys” are smoking.
Isn’t one definition of insanity doing something over and over and still getting the same things wrong? Creating and following that neural pathway repeatedly until the rut is worn so deep they can’t get out of it is only going to result in repeated failures.
I’m waiting for a news story about some kid walking home from school instead of waiting for the bus because the teacher keeps telling the class that the world is going to end tomorrow or very soon, and they all need to be ready. This is if it hasn’t already happened. Haven’t seen it around here just yet.


” Creating and following that neural pathway repeatedly until the rut is worn so deep they can’t get out of it is only going to result in repeated failures. ”
Could this problem be caused by an insufficient number of alternate neural pathways?

John harmsworth

These idiots keep drawing their line in the sand somewhere out past Jupiter. There are probably some reasonable things that could be done to make the world a better place ( land farming fish?), but they just have to go for broke every time with ridiculous warnings in a n effort to destroy Capitalism.
They are a joke! Not a funny one. They hurt the stated cause of conservation by twisting it to undermine human achievement through industry.

David Chappell

“…donations are encouraged…”
’nuff said.


Our second written warning? By some academic know nothing academics, spouting rubbish like —
“1. Nobel Prize in Economics incorporating the limits of the biosphere – The Economic Sciences Prize Committee should give greater weight to externalised environmental limits.”
Nobel Prize? — Worthless, man-made plastic badge of stupidity. “Economic Sciences” is naught but unreal nonsense encrypted with highfalutin jargon. If the work worthy then no mention of any prizes are required as it will stand on it’s merit.
2. Carbon pricing globally – already implemented or planned by some 42 countries and 25 states, provinces and cities but there is an urgent need for higher carbon prices.”
BS! Carbon taxation (for CO2 emissions) is NOT required, elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere is good for life on the planet. CO2 does not govern the climate!
These people act as if they know everything nature can do, and that are in charge of it. Utter hubris on a massive scale. Whoever funds these people stop it NOW! They’re dangerously mad!


We don’t have a doomsday clock but we have warnings, tweets, and our own cookoos.


I think Australia would be “happier” and safer under President Xi.

Greg Cavanagh

I think I’m now in a position to say “I for one would welcome our new Lizard Overlords”.

Second Notice?
I think the only proper response is:
“The check is in the mail.”
With all of the sincerity that phrase usually entails.

Gary Pearse

Time to get a dissenting letter out there with 10 times as many scientists indicating the damage that will be caused by these ‘well-meaning ‘ zealots. Let’s have some papers about the harm this ideology has already caused to the poor and elderly and the opportunity cost to well-being of the trillions taken out of economic development. How have we allowed this plague to develop and prosper?

Bruce Cobb

I think they must mean that we are skating on thin ice, or maybe that the die is cast, there’s no Planet B, the canaries in the coal mine are all tweeting angrily, and if we’re not careful our climate will be pushing up daisies.


almost 9,000 Tweets. really you can easily add a zero to that for a singer sharking their rear end , a cat in a hat or some guy shoving a pepper up his nose .

Bruce of Newcastle

I am a scientist of good standing with a chemistry PhD from the University of Sydney.
I’m embarrassed that such crud should be emitted by my old uni.
My examination of climate data over the last decade strongly suggests to me that most warming last century was natural, and that ECS is below 1 C/doubling. Therefore CO2 is harmless. Simple arithmetic can tell anyone that there is not enough extractable fossil fuel on the planet to raise the global temperature another 2 C.
The harm caused to poor people and the environment by these stupid climate policies is the real crime against humanity.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia

Bruce – Fred Hoyle told people exactly that in the 1970s when people were suggesting ways to halt the onset of the expected new ice age but our poorly informed eco-loons never do their homework. He specifically mentioned that if you set fire to all the coal and oil it still wouldn’t work.
And I totally agree that what is going on is a crime against humanity.

After nearly 5 months, the credibility of this collection of endorsers is zero. “Aaskan Yushal Raseev, Activist
Committee for Global Economic Equality, Maldives” and “Zulu, Dawn, Teacher, Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle, South Africa” are still listed as endorsers. Anyone can sign (themselves or others), there is no checking. This needs to be exposed for the joke it is.

Doug MacKenzie

The truth is that it has taken hundreds of scientists and statisticians 30 years to prove to themselves that “global warming” is a real phenomenon, is at about 1 degree C, and somewhere around 50% caused by human CO2 emissions according to the IPCC, And the scientist’s computer models using the best theories available show about twice the warming compared to what is actually measured. It’s very difficult to tell a couple of billion people that they have to remain living in poverty in order to save the world from a “maybe” apocalypse.

John Smith

The whiff of sulfur and communism…

George McFly......I'm your density

Wow, recognition at last for the Global Community of Bed Wetters

At first I thought this must have been posted by mistake, as it is not yet April Fools day. Nope, this actually was an attempt to be serious. Warmunist lunacy reaches a new peak.

Who decides how many children one gets to have? What one buys? Big Brother?


Is this the “change” I keep hearing about?


“We concur with Dror that getting scientists more politically active is important.”
Advocacy replaces science when this happens. Science should follow where evidence, theory, experimentation and results lead, not to some preconceived “position.” Political advocacy is the death knell for any real science… at least any “science” that can be trusted.


For the Left there is Doom everywhere.
And the Left continues to eat its own in its on-going politically correct rampage.

Arizona State University professor Lawrence Krauss, internationally known as an outspoken atheist and for his work on the symbolic “Doomsday Clock,” has been put on paid leave by university officials after allegations of sexual misconduct were published in a recent BuzzFeed article.

“This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual…as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used by a President-elect of the United States in cavalier and often reckless ways to address the twin threats of nuclear weapons and climate change,” Rachel Bronson, the executive director and publisher of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said in a statement.
Delicious;y sweet schadenfreude:

John Harmsworth

“For the Leftther/e is doom everywhere”1
I think they create doom everywhere they go!