Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; According to “Nobel prize co-winner” Michael Mann and other authors, universities should be ranked and staff should be promoted based on how strongly they support climate action.
Why universities need to declare an ecological and climate emergency
Universities have a responsibility to prepare students for an uncertain future, 11 scholars from around the world argue
September 27, 2019By Jean S. Renouf, Michael E. Mann , John Cook , Christopher Wright , Will Steffen , Patrick Nunn, Pauline Dube, Jean Jouzel , Stephan Lewandowsky, Anne Poelina and Katherine Richardson
Twitter: @Drjsrenouf, @MichaelEMann, @johnfocook, @ChristopherWr11, @PatrickNunn3, @STWorg and @KRichardsonC…
Through the voices of Greta Thunberg, the School Strikes for Climate and the Fridays For Future, youth everywhere are loud and clear in calling for societies to change. Placards at protests around the world read: “Why should anyone study for a future when no one is doing enough to save our future?”; “Climate change is worse than homework”; “If you don’t act like adults, we will”; and “The climate is changing, why aren’t we?”.
Universities have a particular role to play when it comes to acting for the planet. As large institutions, universities’ carbon and environmental footprints are significant, and this alone should be a strong enough incentive to act. But, universities also have the responsibility to be honest with their students and prepare them for a changing climate because whatever jobs they seek after graduation will be fundamentally reshaped by an increasingly variable climate and frequent and unprecedented climate extremes.
…
Mainstreaming ecological and climate action across all disciplines. Universities would ensure that all students, regardless of the discipline and level of study, understand specific climate impacts and possible remedial action in their line of work.
This would be reflected in curricula, university rankings, graduate attributes, as well as in staff performance measurements, including those of high executives.
Interdisciplinary teaching and research activities on global environmental challenges, resilience and solutions would be prioritised and invested in. Collective action, community engagement, partnerships, sharing best practices, and open platforms for innovation would be promoted.
…
Read more: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/why-universities-need-declare-ecological-and-climate-emergency#survey-answer
The academics who authored this demand are from the following universities;
| Jean S. Renouf | Southern Cross University |
| Michael E. Mann | Penn State Earth System Science Center |
| John Cook | George Mason University |
| Christopher Wright | University of Sydney |
| Will Steffen | Australian National University |
| Patrick Nunn | University of the Sunshine Coast |
| Pauline Dube | University of Botswana |
| Jean Jouzel | Atomic Energy Commission in France |
| Stephan Lewandowsky | University of Bristol |
| Anne Poelina | University of Notre Dame Australia |
| Katherine Richardson | University of Copenhagen |
It is a little disappointing to see Australia so well represented in a demand that promotion opportunities and university rankings be governed by climate zeal rather than academic excellence.
Perhaps the Peter Ridd case is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the apparent ongoing attack on academic freedom in Australian institutions.
If you have any children or grandchildren considering higher education, I suggest you think very carefully about this before sending your kid to an Australian university, or any of the universities on the list.
Earthling, James, Resource and Dean
Thanks for the comments.
When the piece was published, I asked the editor, John Tompkins, if he had a background in geology or physics.
He said no.
It will be interesting to see readers’ reactions in the October edition.
🙂
97% of “scientists isn’t working so maybe 97% of young people (if you only count those of limited intelligence) will work.
The Earth’s climate has been changing for eons but the change is so slow that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. Do not mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. According to the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. The optimum global climate has not even been defined. But even if it were defined, we do not know how to achieve it.
The AGW conjecture sounds plausible at first, but upon closer examination it is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, in the troposphere heat transfer is dominated by means other than LWIR absorption band radiation but the AGW conjecture ignores these dominate means of heat energy transfer. The AGW conjecture assumes that H2O, the primary greenhouse gas, will provide a positive feedback and amplify any warming that CO2 might provide. If this were true, H2O warming would positive feedback on itself until the oceans boiled away and the Earth’s atmosphere were more massive than ot Venus but such has not happened nor will it ever happen. The AGW conjecture ignore’s the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, CO2 is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. The over all cooling effects of H2O are evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly smaller than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping LWIR absorbing gases but rather stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too in the Earth’s atmosphere where instead of glass, gravity acts to provide a convective greenhouse effect to limit cooling by convection. As derived by first principles, the Earth;s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the derived amount and 33 degrees C is what has been measured, Any additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. For some, believing in the AGW science fiction has become a religion. Not all colleges and universities should require that their students believe in the AGW science fiction religion. The idea is absurd.
More people are becoming aware that the homophonically challenged Dr. Michael means “Mann-made” climate catastrophe.
How this house of cards continues to stand is just amazing. So many people with their finger in the pie for their own purposes. Non of them care what the cause is, they demand the result (i.e. money and power).
It’s the eyes that have it. Why do they seem evil?
I don’t think they are too close together, they just seem too small in area as compared to the face.
Loved that one. If they had done their home work then climate change wouldn’t seem nearly as bad.
What does Mann think declaring a Climate Emergency will actually do? It is just a shout into the wilderness for most people.
But for some smart lawyers it could be a way to hitch themselves onto the gravy train. In most places when a emergency is declared certain rules come into place which do not normally apply. Will these cities and Universities (if Mann got his way) become liable for more than they are now –yes I think they will. I am sure the smart lawyers are looking at this possibility.
But Mann will not be personally liable, so he will not care, as he has had his few extra seconds in the lime light.
Hmmm… So Mann’s worried that “The Cause” is running out of Minions?
GRRRReta’a not enough?
(Or maybe her funding is taking away from his?)
Despicable!
Or else he will sue them – and lose – as usual. If the facts don’t match up with what he says – legal pressure will.
I’m pretty sure they just want their _books_ to be required reading. Nothing more
It’s no longer difficult to show that CO2, although increasing, has nothing to do with our current warming. Alarmists, rather than taking advantage of earlier global warming data, have instead used a cherry-picked short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature from 1975 to the 2000s. (The IPCC admitted there was a temperature “hiatus” in the 2000s. There was a global cooling between 1945 and 1975.)
The only other argument favoring CO2 is, when added to a closed container, the temperature therein increases somewhat. However, the open atmosphere is hardly a closed container. Satellites detect heat escaping to space and closed containers do not experience planetary-level feedbacks.
The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. The alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region is too well documented!) Alarmists apparently must take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot replicate the earlier global warmings. Their computer models require an increasing CO2 level, plus depend even more on yet another ASSUMPTION – that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase brought on by the increase in CO2.
The global temperature increase during the MWP and the earlier global warmings could not have been influenced by CO2 because there was no increase in CO2, not during the MWP, nor during any of the earlier global warmings before the MWP. The problem for alarmists is that it becomes obvious that our current warming (such as it is) might also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph. Mann recently lost a suit he brought against Dr. Tim Ball years ago. Ball apparently implied that at least some of Mann’s work was fraudulent. Now Mann must pay all of Dr Ball’s legal expenses. Mann succeeded in extending the duration of that lawsuit by delaying a dismissal, agreeing to provide his “work”, at or before the new termination date, but chose to ignore that agreement later.
In case you have any doubt about Mann’s dubious hockey stick, it’s also easy to show (and easy to understand) that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing directly about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. The link below provide the MWP global study, among other things.
https://principia-scientific.org/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Nonetheless the question remains. Why did the alarmists choose CO2 as the culprit when there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever had any impact on our planet’s temperature? There was obviously some uncertainty. Phil Jones, one of the prominent alarmist early players, stated that if the MWP was global and as warm as now, then that was a “different ballgame”. Alarmists decided instead to deny that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.
It’s obvious now, if not then, that a more rational approach would have involved a closer investigation of the earlier global warmings, particularly the MWP, before introducing speculation about CO2.
Some time ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist, and some associates, came up with a theory which does make use of, and explain, the historical data. Svensmark’s theory involves sun activity modulating the level of a rather steady steam of cosmic rays intent on penetrating the lower atmosphere. (CERN certified some time ago that cosmic rays may influence cloud cover.) Until very recently we have been experiencing a high level of sun activity. During such periods the cloud coverage of the earth is lower. More radiation reaches the earth so it becomes warmer. However, a very low level of sun activity is now underway. If the sun remains inactive for a significant duration, Svensmark would expect a cooling.
At this stage of the game, whether or not Svensmark’s theory holds up, it appears that more attention needs to be directed at historical data, and increasing CO2 should be of more concern to botanists and health researchers than climatologists. Since CO2 increase was the only possibility for human activity being responsible for warming, it appears that humanity is off that hook.
Mann is [pruned].
I demand that universities world wide fire all their academic climate frauds – starting with Penn Sate and James Cook University in Townsville and then proceed from there. Leave University of Chicago and University of Otago in NZ and their likewise colleges, who exude rare common sense, alone.
I have said this before, Universities started off as semenaries to teach people to be Priests, then a few rich powerful men, leaders at the time, decided to send their sons to them for a bit of learning, which they themselves lacked.
We should only have schools to teach a particular occupation, and where possible its better tot learn “”On the Job””. A Doctor should start off a nurse, a would be military officer should start as a private.
The bright men who kick started the UK’s Industrial Revolution had all served a 7 year apprehenticeship. They had all got their hands dirty.
Another factor, we should not have a system where the taxpayers has to pay for a course which the student wants. The taxpayer via the government should decide what the economy needs, example , we have far to many lawyers and not enough Doctors.
True that would require some filtering set-up to decide who has the potential ability to complete a particular course.
If a person wants to do his or her own thing, let them pay for it. True they are supposed to repay the government, but if allowed to do a
“”Mickey Mouse”” type course that there is no vacancy for in the real world, then they will never repay for it.
Certainly Universities who want to teach courses that have no commercial potential such as Climate Science, should have the Taxpayers funds cut off.
Of course if we also have a “”Mickey Mouse”” sort of government, then all bets are off, and the country will slowly decline to a 3rd World status. Veneswalia comes to mind, lots of oil, but well on the way to becoming a “Developing country “” .
MJE VK5ELL
“All Universties”? Really?? Surely there are still a few with ethics and a foundation in Science.
Lets be serious it’s the field of climate science trying to tell all the other fields that they are more important. I can tell you how this plays out behind closed doors and it isn’t pretty. You did notice it was only dropkick climate scientist that made the appeal, which itself says a lot.
Sad to see Australia over represented, again!
It’s probably all the climate scientist have left to do in Australia they have been basically sidelined from the political process. Neither major party is putting up anything other than window dressing on climate change and the electorate has spoken load and clear.
“This would be reflected in curricula, university rankings, graduate attributes, as well as in staff performance measurements, including those of high executives.”
University rankings, graduate attributes, and staff performance reviews, will suppress alternative views.
Lysenkoism has returned. Climate change activists are the new followers of lysenkoism.
The solution to the University’s carbon footprint is to withdraw all federal funding and allow them to close, then there won’t be a carbon footprint. And it’s not carbon anyway it’s carbon dioxide a gas not a solid and if they’re not smart enough to know this fact they deserve to be closed. This will also save the federal governments have huge amount of money that we the taxpayers’ have to provide to keep these universities open.
This is the academia equivalent of the EPA endangerment finding.
If or when this goes into effect, ALL academics will be forced to embrace climate derangement, since the funding and careers of every one of their colleagues will depend on the ‘climate ranking’.
This is already the case for numerous social engineering policies, most prominently the ‘diversity’ scam.
This is, for example, the reason that ALL faculty hiring at my alma mater the University of Utah goes through the Diversity office first. Now imagine that you are a young ambitious Geology PhD, but before your faculty application is considered, it must first be authorized by the University’s Climate office.
The rhetoric will become ever more shrill as people wake up that the whole thing is a massive fraud. Those responsible will NEVER admit the whole thing was a fraud because they know the retribution from the People could be quite “detrimental” to them. They are trapped-cornered rats.
At some stage, the pendulum must turn (or we are destined to doom) and the rats will be running away from the sinking ship- scrambling all over others to keep from drowning in the morass. It will be fun to watch them turn on each other, pointing the finger, coming out with lame excuses. It will be even more fun to see mainstream media exposed as the propaganda and misinformation tool it is. The process will be very, very painful and will only occur after much pain and suffering.
Michael Mann is a real scientist, eh? Cutting off funding from anyone who disagrees with him.
‘Prosperity is entirely linked to you doing as I tell you’.
I would deplatform this guy immediately due to fundamental opposition to intellectual enquiry and scientific rigour.
We do indeed have an emergency it is imperative that we remove all the scare mongers and those at the trough of climate change.
What we really need is a declaration of scienc emergency—with folks like Mann, science is dying.
I just sent the following Email to the editor at the Times Higher Education:
Subject: On Nobel Peace prize co-winners: Mann, Nunn are not, the IPCC is.
From: Ric Werme
Date: Wed, October 2, 2019 10:52 am
To: John Gill
Through the blog post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/01/michael-mann-demands-all-universities-declare-a-climate-emergency I found the article https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/why-universities-need-declare-ecological-and-climate-emergency . It includes:
The “co-winner” claim is wrong. From https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-peace-prizes/ :
The co-winners are the IPCC and Al Gore. This makes no mention of “along with fellow authors.”
Addressing the issue directly, the IPCC states in https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf :
Please keep this in mind in future false claims among climate scientists.
-Ric Werme
Mann still clinging to his Nobel “Lariat” (Give a Mann enough rope …) does remind of him refusing to admit that he lost his case against Dr. Ball.