World scientists declare climate emergency

To quote a Facebook friend of mine: Yawn.

More than 11,000 scientists endorse six steps to address climate emergency

University of Sydney

Dr Thomas Newsome in the field. Credit: Fiona Roughley/University of Sydney
Dr Thomas Newsome in the field. Credit: Fiona Roughley/University of Sydney

A global team of scientists including Dr Thomas Newsome at the University of Sydney and international colleagues has warned that “untold human suffering” is unavoidable without deep and lasting shifts in human activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and other factors related to climate change.

The declaration is based on scientific analysis of more than 40 years of publicly available data covering a broad range of measures, including energy use, surface temperature, population growth, land clearing, deforestation, polar ice mass, fertility rates, gross domestic product and carbon emissions.

“Scientists have a moral obligation to warn humanity of any great threat,” said Dr Newsome from the School of Life and Environment Sciences. “From the data we have, it is clear we are facing a climate emergency.”

In a paper published today in BioScience, the authors from the University of Sydney, Oregon State University, University of Cape Town and Tufts University, along with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from 153 countries, declare a climate emergency, present data showing trends as benchmarks against which to measure progress and outline six areas of action to mitigate the worst effects of a human-induced climate change.

“Despite 40 years of major global negotiations, we have generally conducted business as usual and are essentially failing to address this crisis,” said Professor William Ripple, distinguished professor of ecology in the Oregon State University College of Forestry and co-lead author of the paper. “Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected.”

Dr Newsome said that measuring global surface temperatures will continue to remain important. However, he said that a “broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events”.

He said the indicators are intended to be useful for the public, policymakers and the business community to track progress over time.

“While things are bad, all is not hopeless. We can take steps to address the climate emergency,” Dr Newsome said.

The scientists point to six areas in which humanity should take immediate steps to slow down the effects of a warming planet:

  1. Energy. Implement massive conservation practices; replace fossil fuels with clean renewables; leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground; eliminate subsidies to fossil fuel companies; and impose carbon fees that are high enough to restrain the use of fossil fuels.
  2. Short-lived pollutants. Swiftly cut emissions of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, soot and other short-lived climate pollutants. This has the potential to reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50 percent over the next few decades.
  3. Nature. Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and mangroves, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.
  4. Food. Eat mostly plants and consume fewer animal products. This dietary shift would significantly reduce emissions of methane and other greenhouse gases and free up agricultural lands for growing human food rather than livestock feed. Reducing food waste is also critical – the scientists say at least one-third of all food produced ends up as garbage.
  5. Economy. Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. Curtail the extraction of materials and exploitation of ecosystems to maintain long-term biosphere sustainability.
  6. Population. Stabilise global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

The paper states: “Mitigating and adapting to climate change means transforming the ways we govern, manage, eat, and fulfil material and energy requirements.

“We are encouraged by a recent global surge of concern – governments adopting new policies; schoolchildren striking; lawsuits proceeding; and grassroots citizen movements demanding change.

“As scientists, we urge widespread use of the vital signs and hope the graphical indicators will better allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of the crisis, realign priorities and track progress.”

The graphs illustrate how climate-change indicators and factors have changed over the past 40 years, since scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference in Geneva in 1979.

In the ensuing decades, multiple other global assemblies have agreed that urgent action is necessary, but greenhouse gas emissions are still rapidly rising. Other ominous signs from human activities include sustained increases in per-capita meat production, global tree cover loss and number of airline passengers.

There are also some encouraging signs – including decreases in global birth rates and decelerated forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon and increases in wind and solar power – but even those are tinged with worry.

The decline in birth rates has slowed over the last 20 years, for example, and the pace of Amazon forest loss may be starting to increase again.

“Global surface temperature, ocean heat content, extreme weather and its costs, sea level, ocean acidity and land area are all rising,” Professor Ripple said.

“Ice is rapidly disappearing as shown by declining trends in minimum summer Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glacier thickness. All of these rapid changes highlight the urgent need for action.”


Joining Dr Newsome and Professor Ripple are co-lead author Dr Christopher Wolf, a postdoctoral scholar in the Oregon State University College of Forestry; Dr Phoebe Barnard of the Biological Conservation Institute and the University of Cape Town; and Emeritus Professor William Moomaw of Tufts University.


VIDEO explainer of the climate emergency declaration.
Available in 16:9 and square ratios, with or without subtitles.
Download at this link.

PHOTOGRAPHS of Dr Thomas Newsome and PDF of research at this link.

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Pretorius
November 6, 2019 2:11 am


Reply to  John Pretorius
November 6, 2019 7:06 am

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Scissor
November 6, 2019 7:29 am

As a scientist in the applied sciences, I have a morale obligation to warn people that these 11,000 academics are charlatans that don’t appear to have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of physics.

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 6, 2019 9:18 am

11,000 Academics proclaim that by the year 2100, 98% of the current population will be dead from climate change something

Bill Powers
Reply to  Bryan A
November 6, 2019 10:39 am

Try old age. Since 2100 will be 81 years from now that is a good bet even if they extend life expectancy to 100 years of age.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 6, 2019 11:27 am

Nice use of life insurance actuarial tables.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 6, 2019 1:30 pm

On a long enough time line, the survival rate of everyone drops to zero.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 6, 2019 9:46 am

And not one of their trend lines has uncertainty bounds. The 2-sigma uncertainty bars would blacken the entire interior of their “Surface Temperature Change” plot.

They also seem to have no grasp of significant figures.

Also, I’ve investigated “fossil fuel subsidies” and their 3-500 billion $ per year in Figure 1 is a total crock. That number includes the so-called social cost of carbon as a subsidy.

And their Figure 2 shows a rapid increase in extreme weather events, while the WUWT extreme weather page here shows no increase at all in the extreme weather data.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 7, 2019 3:27 am

I thought the IPCC themselves agreed there wasn’t much in the increasing extreme weather events and that there was no real evidence that extreme weather events were costing more money to clear up?

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 7, 2019 10:01 am

If they were scientists they would not refer to carbon dioxide as “carbon”.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 6, 2019 12:07 pm


It’s like the problem is a matter of will power to these people, and not economics and physics.

William Astley
Reply to  Robert W Turner
November 6, 2019 4:13 pm

This petition bets the above petition as it is signed by more scientists and is supported by the observations and analysis

Here is a petition signed by 31,487 scientists that: is no CAGW. And the warming and CO2 increase is mainly beneficial.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that man made increases in CO2, Methane, or other greenhouse gas is causing or will in foreseeable future will cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the climate.

More over the is substantial evidence that the increase in carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects on plants and animal environments of the earth.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Scissor
November 6, 2019 7:46 am

Note that there isn’t the slightest concern for the ‘untold human suffering’ their own policy recommendations would inflict.
Talk about narcissism.

Reply to  Joel Snider
November 6, 2019 8:33 am

But all is to be done “using approaches that ensure social and economic justice” (#6 above). So it’s OK.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 6, 2019 10:29 am

Yes. And isn’t it easy to rationalize when one lives in academia – safe from being confronted by the actual real-world?

Richard Patton
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 6, 2019 4:34 pm

Translation: institute tyranny.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  John Pretorius
November 6, 2019 10:56 am

Oh the horror! That is, the horror that any ‘scientist’ would use phrases such as;

“approaches that ensure social and economic justice.”

Only social ‘scientists’ climate change ‘scientists’ climate change activists, Marxists and the liberal left media would use such psychosocial-babble phrases in a scientific report.

Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 12:33 pm


Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 3:39 pm

“approaches that ensure social and economic justice.”

Translated to mean the Beta Chimps want to take over from the Alpha’s ?

Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 9, 2019 1:01 pm

Hey… I am very much on the Left, a Marxist (one that has studied extensively the works Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) and I would never, ever, use such a silly unscientific language. For a start, scientists do not confuse «Science» with «Social Engineering». And this whole «global warming» (or «climate change» as they define it) is the product of Mathusianism (in a renewed version, of course) whereas Marx and Engels never doubted humankind’s capabilities to adjust to Nature. In fact they highly criticised (and were sarcastic) about the «doomsday» projections of Thomas Malthus. As they would be todat about «Al Gore & Cº»…

Hot under the collar
Reply to  John Pretorius
November 6, 2019 6:39 pm

I’ve just looked at the list of signatories in the supplemental file S2 and there is a;

“Mouse, Micky Professor Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind Namibia”.

I kid you not! Take a look for yourself.

Eugene Lynx
Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 7:02 pm

Funny thing is Mickey Mouse is probably more capable than the whole lot of them.

Roger D
Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 7:29 pm

Indeed, a highly qualified individual from an esteemed institute of learning.

Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 8:35 pm

Its currently unavailable. They are working of “the issue”

Reply to  Hot under the collar
November 6, 2019 9:52 pm

The headmaster of Harry potters school is also there. Who knows what else will appear

November 6, 2019 2:18 am

Wow, so lets live in mud houses and poo in a field, if there is to be no exraction of materials, how will the 40 thousand child slaves in the Congolese colbart mine eat? (Unisef report 2019)… That also means no batteries for solar and wind. I wonder how many of these 11 thousand scientists have families? Or is it just non whites who can not have kids? Or like david Attenborough, maybe we should all stop breathing as humans are a virus? Prince William said africans need to stop having children, maybe thats what the 11 thousand idiots meant???

Economy. Convert the economy’s reliance on carbon fuels to address human dependence on the biosphere. Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. Curtail the extraction of materials and exploitation of ecosystems to maintain long-term biosphere sustainability.
Population. Stabilise global population, which is increasing by more than 200,000 people a day, using approaches that ensure social and economic justice.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 2:41 am

Adobe (mud brick houses) are very efficiently insulated, and cheap to bud. Poo, composted and treated, is valuable to put on fields to maintain fertility.

And do we really have to accept that our high tech western lifestyle is dependent upon 40,000 child slaves in the Congo mines? What do you reckon their health and life expectancy is? I am sure they would eat better if we helped with tech development, education, and yes, birth control. Or do we accept that children continue as slaves so we can get technology cheap, and justify this by saying ‘how else would they eat?’

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 2:51 am

Please, be the first to move in to an African mud hut. An exchange if you will. I guarantee you mud hut dwelling Africans will gladly swap their hut for your house.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 4:35 am

To be fair thick cob ( mud, cow shit and straw ) is not bad. Seems cool in summer and warm in winter.

Christopher Paino
Reply to  zemlik
November 6, 2019 7:36 am

Smells delicious!

Reply to  zemlik
November 6, 2019 8:26 am

Tastes like chicken!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  zemlik
November 6, 2019 8:40 pm

Except no running water and no power (Usually, though I did see mud huts in rural Ethiopia that had power meters installed).

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 5:01 am

“In a paper published today in BioScience”

This is NOT A PAPER. see the link and look at the top, it’s an opinion piece with 11,000 “signatures”. It’s an opinion poll, not a scientific paper.

Issue Section:Viewpoint

Reply to  greg
November 6, 2019 7:22 am

Yep and we are talking about 11000 (sounds like a big number) scientists of unspecified specialities in 154 countries. If each of those countries only contained 1000 scientists each the figure of 11000 starts to look a lot less impressive.

Reply to  greg
November 6, 2019 8:00 am

The best use for op/ed pages is to line bird cages.

David Sinclair
Reply to  greg
November 6, 2019 9:25 am

Since when did scientists suddenly become moralists?
After tbe flood God made a promise to the human race that as long as the earth remained summer and winter, cold and heat, day and night would not cease. So much for mass extinction.
Over the span of time the climate is ever changing as the geological record proves. All the data today only spans 150 years. Not even a blink in time and on the basis of that the science says catastrophic change is coming.
Personally I will take God’s promise to man over that of any scientist.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  greg
November 6, 2019 4:43 pm

“After tbe flood God made a promise to the human race that as long as the earth remained summer and winter, cold and heat, day and night would not cease. So much for mass extinction.”

That was easy, wasn’t it. Oh to live an evidence-free life.

Reply to  greg
November 7, 2019 5:22 pm

I wonder how many Facebook and Twitter groupings cover the lot?

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 3:02 am

I prefer the nuclear option, for the turd world. Plus it cools the planet. sarc. off/

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 3:03 am

Tom Foley

Adobe (mud brick houses) are fine in certain circumstances however, most houses in the civilised west are not built of mud. What do you propose, we knock them all down and rebuild them? And I have no idea how you build beyond two or three stories without steel reinforcement.

And whilst poo might be fine as a fertiliser on a small scale, when one has an entire city, with no gardens, pooing in the street it gets very messy and very dangerous, think Cholera. That’s why sewage systems and treatment plants were developed, which require cheap, reliable energy to run 24/7/365.

The 40,000 child slaves in the Congo is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s not just the people but the land that’s suffering around the world.

Fine, I hear you say, we do without all the computers and smartphones, return to wooden cutlery ban all but electric cars, shut down fossil fuels and build renewables.

In which case, the environmental and human destruction is even worse.

You people are the danger to humanity, not sceptics.

Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2019 4:38 am

My neighbor has an adobe round house. The moron covered all the south facing windows because “it’s too hot in the summer” (and he’s a horder, so he needed the space to cram full of junk). The house came with electric baseboard heat which has never been used, but he has a stack of firewood to rival mine. He also runs an electric air conditioner (versus my swamp cooler). In other words, he is CLUELESS on how to properly use the house. He did not put heavy shutters for summer on the south windows, nothing. Adobe housing is useless with stupid Americans, trust me.

Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 12:38 pm

Adobe housing is used across the American Southwest; and not by idiots.

Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 10:04 pm

After my great grandfather migrated from Russia to the U.S. in 1885, he built a 12′ x 14′ sod house on the prairies of Dakota Territory where my grandfather was born. The walls were 18 inches thick. After a decade or so of income from flax & wheat, he built a two-story timbered house, which was not as well insulated from temperature extremes.

Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2019 10:46 am

“And whilst poo might be fine as a fertiliser on a small scale, when one has an entire city, with no gardens, pooing in the street it gets very messy and very dangerous, think Cholera.”

Just think San Francisco, LA etc. They are currently conducting this experiment. I don’t know if they have cholera, yet, but they do have Hepatitis A, Typhus and rats galore plus trash everywhere to include needles, plastics and feces getting washed untreated into the storm drains and into rivers and the ocean from there. Oh, and they stink.

Reply to  KcTaz
November 6, 2019 3:15 pm

KcTaz. Apparently they’ve managed to have some small cholera outbreaks and Doctors are waiting for the Black Death to arrive.

Barbara J. Witt
Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2019 11:30 am

In North Korea, they use human waste for fertilizer for food growing. It appears many who he escaped have LARGE, long intestinal worms.

Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2019 11:43 am

“most houses in the civilised west are not built of mud.”

Actually, they are.

Bricks are just mud, pressed and fired in a kiln

Concrete is just powered mud with specific levels of calcium carbonate, just add water.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 3:32 am

100% HotScot

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 3:26 am

You are welcome to come to Wales or Scotland and try living in an adobe building.

Reply to  Graemethecat
November 6, 2019 7:37 am

Yup. Mud tends to dissolve in the rain.

Reply to  Graemethecat
November 6, 2019 12:40 pm

Are you telling us that the Scottish and Welsh never cut peat and stacked it into walls?
Same type of stuff as stacked sod, and straw mixed with mud.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 6, 2019 1:43 pm

Peat is alledged to be a tremendous storer of CO2 so, if you start. using it for homes, you are increasing CO2.
Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists
…But peat is also a massive store of carbon, described as Europe’s equivalent of the tropical rainforest. Peat bogs contain and absorb carbon in the same way as trees and plants — but in much higher quantities.

British peatland stores at least 3.2 billion tons of carbon, making it by far the country’s most important carbon sink and among the most important in the world.
Wind farms, and the miles of new roads and tracks needed to service them, damage or destroy the peat and cause significant loss of carbon to the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate change.

Writing in the scientific journal Nature, the scientists, Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith, of Aberdeen University, say: “We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions …we suggest that the construction of wind farms on non-degraded peats should always be avoided…”

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 3:47 am

Adobe (mud brick houses) are very efficiently insulated, and cheap to bud.

Funny, I never seem to see those pushing for others to live in squalor and mud huts lead the way. There is nothing romantic about having rodents living in your roof dropping feces and themselves on you while you eat or sleep, nor catching malaria and a host of other diseases because mud homes don’t really keep the insects out. Chesterton’s fence?

And do we really have to accept that our high tech western lifestyle is dependent upon 40,000 child slaves in the Congo mines?

Apparently so. By the way, are you including China when you say “western lifestyle”? Or do you leave them out because they are already the enlightened Communists and thus have no sin?

Lets say that you were the World Tyrant for the day and declared that the mines in Congo would be closed and everyone loses their means to earn a living. You prefer starvation and unemployment – that goes a long way to short-circuit health and life expectancy? When you say “slavery” are you saying that the people in the mines are in chains and under the threat of violence or incarceration if they don’t show up on the job site? Or are you abusing the language for rhetorical points?

Oh, you have a solution…

I am sure they would eat better if we helped with tech development, education, and yes, birth control.

Brilliant, murder them off with birth control, and the few that remain give them educations in post-modernism, Medieval French lesbian poetry and gender studies. And we can’t leave out “tech development” which probably needs minerals from those closed mines which you claim are integral fo “cheap technology”. I’m not sure how they will “eat better” with that education and nothing to do. And who underwrites all of these gifts? Do they appear ex nihilo or do you confiscate the wealth and income from Producers in “western civilziation” creating slaves out of them (to use your definition of “slave”).

Or do we accept that children continue as slaves

Under your plan (actually Margaret Sanger’s) there are no children, these undesirables are murdered off.

You do make reference to eating a lot, highly educated, but unemployed, barren and living in a mud hut presumably doing nothing more than eating.

What a life (well, not for those killed off). If it wasn’t for the evil “western civilization” and “cheap technology” we would have that highly desirable stone age lifestyle.

Reply to  AWG
November 6, 2019 5:24 am


Bravo, absolutely brilliant reply 😀👍

Reply to  AWG
November 6, 2019 7:24 am

Well, Fred was always very smug that he had the nicest stone house around. Barney seemed to concerned with keeping bamm bamm from knocking up pebbles as the local constabulary was going to charge him with a climate crime for having children.

All in all, Hanna-Barbera at least understood that living in stone houses was good enough for a comic strip. Too bad these jokers that publish this stuff won’t restrict themselves to just reading comics.

Pat Frank
Reply to  AWG
November 6, 2019 9:59 am

Let’s also notice that children working in cobalt mines comes after 60 years and trillions of $ in aid to Africa. What has improved?

I suspect Frederick Douglass’ approach is best. Leave them alone to find their way.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  AWG
November 6, 2019 10:08 am

Where do you sign up for the medieval French lesbian poetry course – it sounds a whole lot more interesting than more bullshit alarm from environmentalists and eco-warrior right-on scientists ?
I expect a BBC series soon.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 4:10 am

well until the usa allows birth control as part of their supposed health outreach for the O/seas women their birthrates going to stay or rise. AIDS still cleans up too many african women so kids without mums..end up as slaves in mines or child sex for the girls.
instead of fearmongering climate crap money could be FAR better used(as well as “scientists work”) fixing those issues.
maybe some reliable power to pump/filter clean water run a cooker and a fridge?
nah too easy and not in the agenda

Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 5:07 am

Birth control is not accepted in many of these countries. Poverty is the biggest contributor to high birth rates, so expecting to make this work in reverse in pretty much insane.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 6:59 am

Poverty is the biggest contributor to high birth rates,

But, but, …. is not a high birth rate the biggest contributor to poverty?

Thus, the literal fact is, social norms are both the biggest contributor to high birth rates and to poverty, …… to wit:

From a sociological perspective, social norms are informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society.

Social norms are regarded as collective representations of acceptable group conduct as well as individual perceptions of particular group conduct.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 7:22 am

And the best, indeed only, solution to poverty is capitalism….well, the only one that actually works to be acurate.

Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 11:11 am

Very true.

Analysis: UN claims a million species face extinction? Time to burn fossil fuels to save them! – ‘Best way to save wilderness is to increase the GDP of those in poverty’
Increasing a nation’s GDP always leads to lower birth rates. If these ppl. are serious, they would concentrate on making poor nations wealthy and, to do that, they need reliable 24/7 fossil fuel electricity.

Reply to  Sheri
November 6, 2019 6:36 pm

Even if your country is poor if you educate women the birth rate drops
Women become valued as they can contribute more economically…often as small traders [while the men sit around and smoke or chew the local mild narcotic].

Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 6:03 am

The US taxpayer funds contraceptives for the Third World programs without limit. What we do not fund is dismemberment of human beings. (At least until and unless the next Democrat genocidal government gets into power.)

Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 6:16 am

Birth control is not “health care.” It does not prevent any disease, and does not cure any disease. Same with abortion. Sorry to break the news to you.

“Birth control” for some is a medical way to achieve a lifestyle choice. Similar to the way I might use Viagra to improve …well… or have a nose job to change my physical appearance, or get a tattoo.

Yes, it includes a medication, and a prescriber. But that does not make it “health care.”

Labeling “BC” as “health care” is a political move for Western imperialism, and a marketing strategy for Big Pharma.

Someone tell me: what is the problem with more people? We had a post-WWII population boom, and economic boom here in the USA. Annual per-person productivity has steadily risen ever since. More people does not equal weaker national economy. Unless the population of Africa threatens the economic forecast of the USA.

Which is behind much of this clamoring for “population control:” review NSSM 200. I note that because it is disgusting to believe that killing people off, and controlling how many children any couple should have is some great foreign policy strategy.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 9:38 am

Birth control most certainly is “health care.” Preventing death is one of the main goals of health care:

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 10:14 am

“Same with abortion” …. Gee, I guess you’ve never heard of an ectopic pregnancy.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 10:19 am

“It does not prevent any disease” Using condoms prevents the spread of most STDs.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 12:08 pm

If an unborn fetus can feel the pain of being aborted, ….. how in the world does said fetus survive its trip through the “birth canal” without feeling similar pain to that which its mother feels when birthing it?

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 1:54 pm

You are seriously comparing being sliced and diced in the womb to the short trip through the birth canal?
I’ve had two children. One was crying .One came out quite happy. I was at the birth of one of my granddaughters who also came into the world quite happy. It’s rather obvious to any mother that a baby is not permanently traumatized by being born while ultra sounds show an abortion is painful and permanent.

Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 6, 2019 5:58 pm

KcTaz, how does an ultrasound show pain?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
November 7, 2019 4:33 am

KcTaz, so when the Dr./Gynecologist has to use forceps and tug hard as ell …. and the mother screaming her lungs out due to the pain of forcing a 6 pound baby through a 4 pound birth canal ……. the kid comes out laughing and smiling and don’t need to be held up by its feet to drain its lungs and its butt spanked to get it to start breathing.

KcTaz, ….. why don’tja post a “link” to an ultra sound of a “birth canal” trip so everyone can witness a “happy, smiling” baby being born.

Richard Patton
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 4:46 pm

Boy are you living in the `70’s. Birth rates art dropping all over the world. In the developed world less than needed to maintain the population. (we will be feeling the effect here in the USA in less than a decade) And in most of the “third world”, the fertility rate is down to 2.7 (2.1 is what is needed to maintain population) and dropping.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 4:15 am

If the Chinese hadn’t enforced demographic measures, they wouldn’t be where they are now. The crucial point is number 6. If this is addressed, the rest will not be so acute. As for measures 2 and 4: humans do not have the digestive tract of primates. Livestock is the only means to generate food from millions of square miles of grassland. The greenhouse gases generated come from bacterial nitrification of plant matter. This takes place either in the livestock or in the ground later. Little additionnal GHG is generated. When people talk about how much liter drinking water per kg of meat is used: that water also goes back to the ecosystem and is not destroyed. If one wants consequence: why should humans starve and livestock be reduced when nobody mentions the millions of household pets, mainly cats and dogs and their “contributions” to the ecosystem?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Eric Vieira
November 6, 2019 7:13 am

@ Eric Vieira
When people talk about how much liter drinking water per kg of meat is used:

Right on, Eric.

You should see the reaction when I tell people that the reason California often has a “water shortage” is because they are shipping so much of it out-of-state in the billions of pounds of fruits, vegetable and nuts that are sold in every other State in America.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
November 6, 2019 2:12 pm

In addition the Mehtane molecule is one Carbon atom which breaks down after a 12…no sorry 7….no sorry again….5… well maybe it’s only 3 years in the atmosphere (IPCC narrative) to produce CO2 (one atom of C) and water – both of which are then used by the plant to produce sugars (and proteins.) So, essententially, Methane is in equilibrium as far as a GHG is concerned and is NOT a contributor to any increase in ‘global warming’

Note that even the IPCC admits this although not publicly. The reduction in their estimate of the life cycle of Methane in the atmosphere has not changed the climate models.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 5:21 am

So your solution for child slaves mining the raw materials for our high tech modern lifestyle is …. more tech?

You can’t have it both ways. Either our modern technological lifestyle is a climate sin or it is not.

Nothing is going to help those kids as long as their governments are run by corrupt kleptocrats backed by the very same oligarchs who make their money mining raw materials for western tech companies. Also, let’s not forget that the renewable energy industry is one of the biggest sources of income for those mining companies. All those windmills and solar panels they build require a bunch of raw materials mined in underdeveloped countries.

Jim Sweet
Reply to  Steve
November 6, 2019 6:55 am

The problem of child slavery is not technology, it’s the barbaric governments (if they exist at all) that allow/encourage it.

Focus on the real problems instead of scapegoating the world for wanting progress.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 5:49 am

Many parts of Africa cannot sustain crops of any kind but various hard grasses survive. That is why cattle are so important to African tribes they graze over large areas and provide much needed protein to people who would otherwise starve. Of course some dumb ozzie would have no knowledge of that. The article reads like it was written by a 12 year old, with little understanding of the real world and the loony “six steps” have clearly not been thought through! For example if the entire UK was covered in these clunking wind turbines, they would only provide 30% of the UK’s power needs. And power stations – coal or atomic or gas – would have to be kept up and fired 24/7 for when the wind doesn’t blow – or when it blows too hard and Sancha Panza’s windmills have to be shut down. Growing vegetables is highly mechanised agriculture – ploughing, planting, spreading fertilizer, making fertilizer, croop spraying by aircraft, pumping water for irrigation, making and spraying insectisides, harvesting…… a huge carbon footprint. If this Newsome fellow’s intelligence is typical of other “climate scientists” then no wonder sensible people question their dodgy computer models and predictions. It seems Thomas knew some – but not enough.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 6:56 am

“our high tech western lifestyle is dependent upon 40,000 child slaves in the Congo mines”

Those child slaves are mining the Cobalt needed for Wind Turbines and cellphones.
One single modern large wind turbine also needs 600 tons of coal to make the steel for the base and tower.

That’s one the problems with alternative energies. They’re so polluting, expensive and wasteful.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 7:35 am

Life expectancy in the Congo is about 20 years longer than it was 50 years ago before those “child slaves” began mining cobalt. You want to improve their lives, go fund some water well drilling and infrastructure development for them, but the developed world has no obligation to go around building nations.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 6, 2019 8:26 am

Absolutely no one is stopping you from pursuing that way of living.

I suspect you won’tfor the same reasons no one else wants to. Until people who believe the world is in a crisis start living like it is – and either living in a way that would help lessen the ‘problem’, OR preparing for a future of disasters – then you have no credibility.

If I believed earth was going tits-up, I would purchase a piece of property that has a large cave (such properties exist near me), and begin converting it to a well-stocked abode: food, water, med supplies, solar panels, waterproofing, method of heating, etc.), NOT jetting around the world climate meetings or buying beachfront property.

So when will construction start on your adobe hut?

Big T
Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 3:45 am

More money, is their mantra. Then they will save us!

Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 3:48 am

“so lets live in mud houses and poo in a field, “

That would be a trade up for many folks in San Francisco.

Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 4:05 am

good luck with any efforts to stop the birthrates in africa and the mid east and islands
Nguinea men have been cutting their wives arms to remove the birth control implants as they see more kids are a sign of their virility
the fact the kids and mums are lucky to survive or prosper and be healthy doesnt matter to them.

as for the title article
amazing timing isnt it?
hours after Trump announced the flick to the fwench..
ABC radio started the spin at 6am news by 8am I wanted to reach in and strangle em
Im trying to see if i can locate the AndrewBolt skynews fightback
no tv so I hope its online, I need some good cheer

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 6:35 am

Sunny November 6, 2019 at 2:18 am
I wonder how many of these 11 thousand scientists have families?

A better question to ask might be ……..

I wonder how many of those 11 thousand scientists have or applied for “non-repayable” Government Grants?

Pat Frank
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 6, 2019 10:08 am

It appears from below that the proper question is, how many of the 11,000 scientists are scientists.

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 6, 2019 12:38 pm

In similar lists of climate alarmist “scientists” I see that many of them are biologists. I have always assumed that biology is a science. But biologists should not opine about climate unless they also studied physics and statistics and geology, at least.

Reply to  Sunny
November 6, 2019 7:04 am

“Sunny November 6, 2019 at 2:18 am
Wow, so lets live in mud houses and poo in a field…”

Look out, the NIMF* folks will be up in arms!

*Not In My Field”


Andy Espersen
November 6, 2019 2:25 am

You said it, Charles : Yawn.

Rhys Jaggar
November 6, 2019 2:28 am

2, 3 and 6 are sensible.

Not convinced by 1, 4 and 5….

Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 2:38 am

Look at the list of “scientists”. Not many in the hard sciences, but I guess in “climate science” all you need is art.

John Pretorius
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 4:02 am

Please can someone post a link to the list.

Rhys Read
Reply to  John Pretorius
November 6, 2019 5:35 am
The majority appear to be students in ecology studies or environmental justice. Probably told to sign or flunk.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Rhys Read
November 6, 2019 11:44 am

If there was a list of signatories at that link, it’s not there now. I wonder how many signatures they have after removing Mr. Mouse et al?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 6:29 am

Completely agree. The lead author (Newsome) isn’t even a Prof, he’s a lecturer in environmental science. Then you have a post doc in forestry (Wolf), and two policy people. If you actually look at the list of 11,000 a lot of them are students. Also note they listed media contacts for interviews. It;’s just propaganda.

Reply to  DAK
November 6, 2019 6:48 am

Including one Mouse, Mickey, a Professor at the “Mickey Mouse Institute For the Blind” and a ‘student’ at the Suez Canal University

Reply to  Bill Marsh
November 6, 2019 2:11 pm

I’m surprised they didn’t get any signatures from the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Can’t Read Too Good and Want to do Other Stuff Good Too

Reply to  MarkH
November 6, 2019 10:58 pm

A few Zoologists no Zoolander but if you do a Google search on some of the names with Phd’s you get that person but pick some of the ones that just have the name and province you get zero results .

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 6:34 am

The title of the article should be “11,000 Soft Scientists Want to Make Sure They Have Jobs After Getting Out of School”.

November 6, 2019 2:38 am

Begs the question? Was Thomas Malthus a vegan, or a vegetarian…_

Reply to  DiggerUK
November 6, 2019 7:22 am

This “climate” movement (which by its extremism is now marginalizing to the fringe outside of the chattering classes) is resembling a Malthusian death cult more every day. They sound like Luddites afraid to live in the modern world, raving about some Edenic past that never existed.

Their fears have no reality. They are an empty narrative, nothing more. Most people look at them as just plain nuts. The important part is to teach your kids not to listen to their claptrap. The most convincing argument is a synopsis of 50 years of their failed silly predictions.

Richard of NZ
November 6, 2019 2:43 am

Of course Dr. Micky Mouse is one of the signatories. The petition was an on line petition that does no appear to have had an checking of the “signatories.

Reply to  Richard of NZ
November 6, 2019 3:26 am

LOL classic signatory. At least he was from the “Institute for the Blind” .

Reply to  diggs
November 6, 2019 7:55 am

If only Dr. Duck, professor at the Institute for the Dumb had signed. In any case, Dr. Mouse is probably the most famous of the signatories.

Reply to  Richard of NZ
November 6, 2019 4:27 am

Lord Dumbledore is in there too

Reply to  Richard of NZ
November 6, 2019 10:22 pm

“Of course Dr. Micky Mouse is one of the signatories” Like the Oregon petition which was signed by Hawkeye Pearce

Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 2:44 am
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 4:27 am

got the page but ZERO comments?
have they removed it?

Gerald Marquardt
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 5:41 am

Go to the bottom of the page

Patrick MJD
Reply to  ozspeaksup
November 6, 2019 7:45 am

All SMH articles that have comments sections are all geared for tablets and mobiles, so if on a PC and a typical browser, it is really frustrating to navigate. As Gerald Marquardt November 6, 2019 at 5:41 am says, you have to go to the bottom of the page, and sometimes you have to scroll twice or more because of the way the page is setup.

Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 2:55 am
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 4:17 am

studies dingos..ffs
theyve done fine for thousands of yrs without researchers
and anyone know who this mob are?
listed at the bottom of adelaide news article on same…

Oregon-based non-profit The Worthy Garden club, a collective of business owners, entrepreneurs, energy specialists, agriculturists, scientists, and astronomers, provided partial support for the research.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 6, 2019 4:34 am

Reading the titles of his authored papers it sounds like he wants the dingo to eat your baby.

Geoff Sherrington
November 6, 2019 2:56 am

At age 78 I cannot name a single aspect of “climate change” that has worsened, made me feel uncomfortable, threatened me, worried me .. or has any of these implications for our children and theirs.
If we are approaching a crisis, then strange crisis it is. Hundreds of detriments have been forecast over the last 40 years, yet none of them has happened yet.
They are supposed to all come out of the woodwork, these hundreds of threats, at some future time, to bite me on the bum.
What unbelievable scenarios are thrust upon us.
Has anyone here been harmed by climate change? Do tell us how, when and how bad it was. Geoff S

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 6, 2019 6:20 am

Well said, Geoff.

I grew up in a hot semi-desert area. I was struck by the journals of a Scot, a gardener who lived there from 1820-1870. His comments on the weather and climate and his temperature records indicate heat and drought that equals or even exceeds that of today. Yet the alarmists are claiming that this area is experiencing the worst of climate change. These alarmists want us to listen to a sixteen year old but ignore the insights of those who have been around for seven or more decades.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 6, 2019 6:23 am

Geoff – it is always a catastrophe in the future, or for someone else.

That is the game. Make me feel guilty ans responsible for someone on the other side of the globe. Or, more often, a hypothetical. “What about the kid who…” “What about the single mom who…” What about the ….” –These Jesus-Complex Progs want us to engineer the world around a few hypotheticals. As long as their ego is satisfied and they get the money and power.

November 6, 2019 3:00 am

So we know which useless 11,000 ‘scientists’ to sack. Millions of proper scientists disagree.

Y. Knott
Reply to  chaswarnertoo
November 6, 2019 5:18 am

THAT there were 11,000 of them, heavily reinforces Cook’s “Consensus”.

This needs shredding – the headline, standing alone, gives governments all the justification they need to just keep on keeping-on. And we know the study is rubbish, but the proles don’t – “Keep those cards and letters – AND donations, AND votes – coming in!” Which was likely the point of the study; wonder who funded it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Y. Knott
November 6, 2019 6:57 am

“This needs shredding – the headline, standing alone, gives governments all the justification they need to just keep on keeping-on.”

Yes, this misrepresentation needs a thorough debunking. You can bet it will be cited by the alarmists. They won’t tell you Micky Mouse is one of those signing the form. This is just another attempt to fool the public into believing something for which there is no evidence: Human-caused climate change.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 6, 2019 7:29 pm

Imagine the Mouseketeers speliing out Mickey’s name: M-I-C, K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E. Mickey Mouse!

Now he’s a climate scientist!

Y. Knott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 8, 2019 5:27 am

– Which is only fair – he’s at least as well-credentialed, and at least as expert in climate science as the rest of them…

BTW, it was ‘MICKY’ Mouse, not Mickey Mouse; hopefully this satisfies any doubts you had about his bona fides /sarc

steve case
November 6, 2019 3:01 am

Short-lived pollutants. Swiftly cut emissions of methane, … This has the potential to reduce the short-term warming trend by more than 50 percent over the next few decades.

Beware of carefully constructed misdirection.

November 6, 2019 3:05 am

Somehow we encouraged these barmy zealot’s.

Where did we go wrong?

Reply to  HotScot
November 6, 2019 3:20 am

We didn’t cull fast and often, it’s like bushfire prevention you need to keep ontop of it.

Alasdair Fairbairn
November 6, 2019 3:06 am

Political science —: An oxymoron.

Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
November 6, 2019 11:08 am

But Political Engineering is plain murder. The Excess Winter Mortality in the UK alone is approx 40,000 old folks who by and large, could not afford to heat their freezing homes. Every year a 1000 times more Grandparents die in their homes than the 39 poor fools who were killed in that closed up truck.
The damned Pols and the corrupt Scienteers need to be made to face the truth.

Dudley Horscroft
November 6, 2019 3:06 am

I went through the list of “scientists” from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Not one described himself as a “Climate Scientist”. I think one could delete the ‘students, even the Phd Students, and some of the others could hardly be described as a ‘scientist’ in the “Climate Science field”. Certainly not the “Ethnomusicologist.

In other words, someone has scraped together a list of people vaguely in a scientific area who have been persuaded to put their names to a list supposedly purporting to promote ideas to “save the planet'”.

Is this perhaps the list of 11 000 people who were asked their views on Climate Catastrophe, of whom only 3000 bothered to reply, and of whom only about 77 of 79 agreed fully with the view that “something must be done?” The list that produced the totally fictional 97% of scientists agree?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
November 6, 2019 5:57 am

One does not need to be a “climate scientist” to have real understanding of climate and weather. Take someone who has been farming for fifty years on the family farm where they have kept a meticulous record for generations. This has enabled them to farm successfully by being observant and adapting to all kinds of weather. To him it is a joke thinking we can predict ahead and engineer the climate to conform to some magical number.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
November 6, 2019 8:41 am

This is very true. A few years ago I was clearing my Mum’s path of snow for the second time in a week or so and stopped to chat to a local farmer. I just happened to mention that I was desperately trying to clear the path so that it didn’t get chance to freeze. He told me that it wouldn’t settle for long as it wasn’t that type of snow and conditions and that it would be gone in a couple of days. He was bang on and when I asked him how he knew, he said it was just experience- something that you had to develop over the years as your livelihood depended on it.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Andy Mansell
November 6, 2019 2:20 pm

Andy, thanks for this good example. I hope many will follow your lead by giving other examples of people with astute observation and careful reasoning that trump the “climate experts.”

This is also precisely why engineers – who are interested in getting things to work properly – view the “alarmist climate claims” differently from the academics busy with computer models – that do not work!

November 6, 2019 3:08 am

Dr Newsome said that measuring global surface temperatures will continue to remain important. However, he said that a “broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events”.

First. Surface temperature changes are an artifact of tree-cover gain. The greening of the planet is well documented, the effects of albedo well established and non controversial.

Second. Several of these “broad indicators” are simply besides the point and/or flat wrong.
What difference does the population make? None. Only a sick millie, historic illiterate, Hitler youth, or communist, would resort to population controls. My prescription for Newsome is a season or two spent studying The World At War on a local PBS channel, to dispel himself of sick eugenic delusions.

Third. The world’s tree cover has steadily increased as wood has given way to steel as the main building material, not just from trees not being harvested, but also from co2 fertilization from the milling of steel.

Four. There is no such thing as a fossil fuel subsidy. At every point from the exploration, extraction, refinement, delivery and end user sale, energy is taxed and taxed and taxed some more so that the exorbitant sum hided from we working stiffs holds no relation to the actual cost of producing the stuff.

Five. Economic losses due to extreme weather events are steadily decreasing due to better forecasting.

Everything this dude spouts is ugly or just wrong. There should be a tax for being that consistently wrong. And their should be civil code against being that ugly, with fines and prison terms.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  papertiger
November 6, 2019 5:26 am

The “broad indicators” will be used when we start cooling.

November 6, 2019 3:17 am

Australian ABC network was pushing this story today and then had Ross Garnaut on pushing his new book. The comment of the morning came from a caller who rang in and asked had the ABC been taken over by XR people?
The on-air host said it was a new worthy item because it was 11 thousand scientists the caller then quipped well 11 Million of us voted the other way mate and we pay your wages and probably all the Australian scientists who signed this junk. He then asked what deal Ross Garnaut had got to get to push his book on a public broadcaster at the taxpayers expense. It was quite funny listening to the host squirm.

Reply to  LdB
November 6, 2019 4:23 am

damn I missed that!
woulda made my day
as for Garnaut..I hoped hes kicked the bucket
that mans responsible for far too much policy with his shit reports prior
shoulda known better
hes an abc fave as is whining steffen and flimflam

Carl Friis-Hansen
November 6, 2019 3:19 am

“global tree cover loss”
Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing

We should not eat the animals, it is better the animals only eat each other – maybe.

The whole thing is just a political paper disguised as scientific. The tragic thing is that many or maybe even most people will adopt this as scientifically coherent and going along with it as long as they have the prosperity to do so.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 6, 2019 8:53 pm

Saw a report the other day spinning rapid tree growth as a climate problem due to increased water use expiration of water vapour. Seems disaster can be confected from anything. Plants grow therefore doom, apparently.

November 6, 2019 3:28 am

“From the data we have, it is clear we are facing a climate emergency.” Show us your data.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 6, 2019 3:56 am

Uhm, they are still altering the data.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
November 6, 2019 3:57 am

The cannot show the data:
They meant to say “From the data we had. …” See, the dog has eaten my homework – right Dr. Mann?

November 6, 2019 3:34 am

““untold human suffering” is unavoidable without deep and lasting shifts in human activities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions –‘ Well, gee whiz, maybe they could contribute some of their grants money to a fund to support people living in poverty-stricken areas.

Really, seriously, if these 11,000 science guys want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a very simple solution: if they stopped traveling/talking/breathing/whatever, that will seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions by them. /s

As I understand it, we’re going to be sending people to Mars to colonize the place before long. Mars needs help with its own greenhouse gases problem: it has an atmosphere that is less than 1% of Earth’s, so it does not protect the planet from the Sun’s radiation nor does it do much to retain heat at the surface. It consists of 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and the remainder is trace amounts of oxygen, water vapor, and other gases. (Source: Universe Today) See? That solves the problem nicely.

Reply to  Sara
November 6, 2019 4:28 am

… untold human suffering …

To be human is to suffer. Fossil fuels have reduced human suffering more than just about anything else I can think of.

The alarmists ignore and discount all evidence that fossil fuels have a huge beneficial effect.

Reply to  Sara
November 6, 2019 7:09 am

Yeah, but, commieBob, it doesn’t fir their “meme”, so they have to ignore it. If they paid attention to it, they’d have panic attacks, you see, because it means admitting that they are wrong… and they can’t stand that simple fact.

November 6, 2019 3:39 am

I bet all are employed on taxpayers dime. Eisenhower had warned us:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Jarek Luberek
November 6, 2019 3:40 am

So essentially 11000 scientists with the pocketbooks open screaming, feed me.

Bill Toland
November 6, 2019 3:54 am

They haven’t actually told us what the “untold human suffering” is. It is very unusual for climate alarmists to be so shy about telling us of the wholly imaginary horrors caused by beneficial global warming

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Bill Toland
November 6, 2019 8:51 am

They can’t tell us because they’re as yet ‘untold’, but whatever they are they will be bad, like really, really bad- far worse than the last untold suffering last week…..

Reply to  Bill Toland
November 6, 2019 12:47 pm

“untold human suffering’ –> No soy lattes available, no vegan-only restaurants open any more, no Snorebux cafe au soy leche – this list is endless. /s

November 6, 2019 3:54 am

They forgot to include using unicorn poo with all its magical properties, for example: fertilizer that quadruples crop yields and, like Australian emu salve, doesn’t stink; for making fuel cakes for cooking and illumination, and to heat those mud huts in winter, all without smoke heavy in respiratory-illness-causing particulates nor stink.


michael hart
November 6, 2019 3:57 am

Dr Thomas Newsome has a PhD in dingos and PostDoc’d in grey wolves. Seriously.

I guess that’s as good a qualification as any for somebody who wants to tell the world what to do.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 6, 2019 4:04 am

11000 gullibles aspiring to be the laughing stock of the decade.

November 6, 2019 4:10 am

Such pledge card enthusiasm of scientists existed in Germany for starting and supporting WW1.

November 6, 2019 4:10 am

“untold human suffering” – maybe because it’s cold in NH north ?

Donald Boughton
November 6, 2019 4:13 am

How many climate scientists truly worthy of the designation are there alive and working on climate in the world? I would be surprised if the number is more than a few hundred.

November 6, 2019 4:15 am

“Scientists have a moral obligation … to stop subsidized and hence unfair competition against circus clowns.”

The Union of Concerned Clowns.

Flight Level
November 6, 2019 4:15 am

Ah, the hand that feeds ! Good doggy, show me a trick now !

It’s mind boggling how much we could spare on tenures without loosing on progress. So far 11’000 and counting.

Harry Newman
November 6, 2019 4:17 am

Pathetic attempt at an analytical paper with no substantiation, but what can you expect from a religious diatribe. Supported by the usual culprits … Ehrlich! For goodness sake. Same old rubbish and they try and justify it all in term of “their” superior morality. The bottom line is that it is all a rehash of the demented elitist eugenics that runs all the way back to Malthus. Taking a page out of the WOKE playbook, it would seem that de-platforming them would be appropriate and sweet, and it would save the poor suffering taxpayer a mint.

Walter Sobchak
November 6, 2019 4:20 am

Warmunsim, the last socially acceptable form of racism. item 6. There are too many brown babies. Why am I the only one who calls them out on this?

November 6, 2019 4:29 am

maybe we could put the 11k signatories on the Mars wanna be list?
just a thought

November 6, 2019 4:29 am

That’s a hell of a lot of parasites relying on the working class to pay their salaries, what exactly do they bring to the table apart from doom and gloom/

November 6, 2019 4:29 am

Nothing but propaganda.

The Climate Alarm Industry has INVENTED a problem too big to fix without 1.) a massive nuclear power build (around 25,000 Gigawatt Nuclear Plants)…or 2.) too expensive => $500/month/family forever for Renewables (see cost trajectory in Germany’s failed plans).

They won’t consider Nuclear, and Renewables would destroy economies…WHICH WILL kill millions to billions of souls.

Meanwhile, the Climate keeps getting milder and better and Climate related fatalities continue to drop like a rock.

See Chile recently if you think the world’s population is going to go quietly into the night from this fraud.

November 6, 2019 4:34 am

A global team of scientists including Dr Thomas Newsome at the University of Sydney and international colleagues has warned that “untold human suffering” is unavoidable without deep and lasting shifts in human activities…

So… “untold human suffering” at some point in the future is unavoidable without “untold human suffering” right now?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 6, 2019 4:36 am

Dr. Thomas Newsome isn’t a scientist… He’s an ecologist… A fake science.

Tom in Florida
November 6, 2019 4:37 am

Where have I heard this before?:

Matthew Sykes
November 6, 2019 4:40 am

Climate emergency, ha! It was below zero last night. It was below zero for 4th November (Guy Fawkes night) back in the 70s when I was a kid.

It isnt even getting much warmer, let alone an emergency!

These people must think we are stupid if they think we cant see through their lies.

Anyway, clearly yet another lame attempt to push agenda21 on us.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
November 6, 2019 5:07 pm

It’s going to be 22F tonight in my AO. That means that if I want a frozen turkey in time for Thanksgiving, I only need to go for a walk in the woods. There will likely be plenty of frozen turkeys available in the grassy areas, or maybe standing on logs, staring into space, frozen solid. Poor turkeys!!!

November 6, 2019 4:44 am

I was interested in their “proof” of a climate emergency, so looked at their charts for it. One of the charts caught my eye, their trend in Greenland ice mass loss. The chart showed a trend of 260 gigatons of net ice mass loss per year over the years from about 2000 to 2012. I remembered this very topic being discussed in a post on WUWT a month or so ago. I went looking for how many gigatons of ice there was on Greenland. Surprisingly, doing a simple search for “total gigatons of ice in Greenland” turned up numerous sites describing annual ice loss, but no numbers. I had to look for “total area of Greenland” and “average ice thickness.” So 2.166 million sq. km of area and 1.5 km of average depth. So roughly 3.25 million gigatons of ice. So at the rate of 260 gigatons a year, it would take about 12,500 years to melt. This is one piece of their evidence for a “climate emergency.” I couldn’t be bothered to check the other charts, but wouldn’t be surprised to find similar silliness.

Reply to  Paul
November 6, 2019 5:23 am

They ‘discovered’ a simple way to make graphs look scarey: Create a highly exagerated vertical scale , and limit the horizontal scale to the period that best suits the story you want to tell. Some might call that propaganda

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Paul
November 6, 2019 5:46 am

+ 10 🙂

Reply to  Paul
November 6, 2019 8:50 am

There is an open access 2013 paper by Machguth et al that calulates the contribution to sealevel rise by 2098 from Greenland’s 90,000 sqkm of ice cap and glaciers, using several global climate models:
-The future sea-level rise contribution of Greenland’s glaciers and ice caps-
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 025005 ,doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/025005
Online at
From their abstract:
-“The mass loss of all GICs by 2098 is calculated to be 2016+/- 129 Gt (HIRHAM5
forcing), 2584 +/- 109 Gt (RACMO2) and 3907 +/-108 Gt (MAR). This corresponds to a total
contribution to sea-level rise of 5:8+/- 0:4, 7:4 +/- 0:3 and 11:2 +/- 0:3 mm, respectively.
Sensitivity experiments suggest that mass loss could be higher by 20–30% if a strong lowering
of the surface albedo were to take place in the future. It is shown that the sea-level rise
contribution from the north-easterly regions of Greenland is reduced by increasing
precipitation while mass loss in the southern half of Greenland is dominated by steadily
decreasing summer mass balances. In addition we observe glaciers in the north-eastern part of
Greenland changing their characteristics towards greater activity and mass turnover.”-

Does not suggest that we should all be in climate panic mode, but it is a 6yr old paper .

Michael Ozanne
November 6, 2019 5:01 am

“University of Cape Town”

well there’s a credible institution….

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael Ozanne
November 6, 2019 6:22 am

+10 🙁

Reply to  Michael Ozanne
November 6, 2019 11:54 am

If they are serious about decolonizing, they should immediately close their hospitals and clinics which all use western medical science and refuse all foreign aid and stop trading with Western nations.
After that, they should eliminate electricity, electrical lighting and refuse to use buildings built using western science and start from scratch using only African science from now on. Simple.

Kenan Meyer
November 6, 2019 5:04 am

The list looks a bit dubious to me. A lot don’t mention even their discipline. Upon a quick look I also found a pensioner, a critical care specialist, an IT engineer,a linguist, a sociologist, a professor of Control systems and automation, a General Practioner, a specialist in Global Mental Health and on and on.
I really wonder how this list has been produced.

11.000 scientists!? Are you kidding me?

Justin Burch
November 6, 2019 5:05 am

CBC had an interesting factoid about this. Apparently when the same group issued their petition two years ago the number of participating scientists including Mickey Mouse and Dumbledore was 16,000. The people who wrote the petition made certain to state that the sign up period was shorter this year than previous years, hence the 31% drop in participants.

November 6, 2019 5:10 am

They are in a hurry because of the extremely cold winter this year. They know people are going to figure out their tricks and false alarm of CO2 led global warming. Hence they are very scared and really in a hurry before the actual winter(DJF) arrives.

November 6, 2019 5:13 am

I would have expected a little bit of serious critic on the article, that is flawed on many aspects. Yawn! does not qualify as such.

Reply to  Javier
November 6, 2019 1:25 pm

The list of signatories is no longer available to view if you actually go to the website……hmmmm ….I wonder why.

November 6, 2019 5:14 am

“Mitigating and adapting to climate change means transforming the ways we govern, manage, eat, and fulfil material and energy requirements.


tim maguire
November 6, 2019 5:19 am

As described, this isn’t a scientific document, it is a political document. File it with the other activist demands.

The real shame is that the climate is changing and we need to be nimble to address the environments we find ourselves in as time marches on. Crap like this just gets in the way of dealing with the problems we will actually face.

November 6, 2019 5:20 am

Ironic. On the video he says we must imporve human health and welbeing and control population growth. Well, the principal reason the population is so high and growing is because of our massive success at improving human health and wellbeing – to greater levels than ever before in human history. It’s because we found better ways to stop people (especially infants) from dying, not because we selfishly have more babies.

Dave Ward
November 6, 2019 5:24 am

I’m not the slightest bit concerned about the climate “Emergency” these loons are promoting. I am, however, extremely worried about the drastic measures they are demanding, and especially the governments who appear to believe them. I’m not the first to admit, in comments, that I wish I was 20 years older…

Gerald Machnee
November 6, 2019 5:28 am

**“Ice is rapidly disappearing as shown by declining trends in minimum summer Arctic sea ice, Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glacier thickness. All of these rapid changes highlight the urgent need for action.”**

Another lie.
The Arctic ice summer minimum has not changed in the last 10 years.

ferd berple
November 6, 2019 5:33 am

5. … Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence.

So, are the climate scientists involve willing to take a 50% pay cut? Or why not give up their paychecks altogether? Wouldn’t that shift them away from their personal pursuit of affluence?

Shouldn’t the climate scientists lead by example and actually practice what they preach?

November 6, 2019 5:38 am

“Despite 40 years of major global negotiations, we have generally conducted business as usual and are essentially failing to address this crisis”

So the crisis has been going on for 40 years and no one did anything about it despite trying real hard? But now they will try hard again?


November 6, 2019 5:41 am

Lots of alarmism and practically no specifics, We all know that extreme weather has had zero correlation with rising temps.

ferd berple
November 6, 2019 5:42 am

“untold human suffering” is unavoidable
The Buddha already told us that, 2500 years ago.

November 6, 2019 5:42 am

The build up to WW3 has begun as the first advocacy world war. There will be many victims on multiple continents and large numbers of unintended consequences will ensue that are deflected by the proponents and generals. Propaganda teams will be called in to reinforce the movement when the cracks appear. Those who don’t sign the pledge cards will be left out in the cold or worse.

Michael in Dublin
November 6, 2019 5:44 am

This four page viewpoint article in BioScience with five authors is inadvertently revealing – that is for a keenly perceptive reader.

Look carefully into the funding of scientific research. The “sensational” work tends to get by far the most support. What appears to many to be “boring” – but in reality valuable research – struggles getting modest funding.

A decade ago I read an excellent scientific paper on the process of AIDS research. The writer clearly explained the three stages before a medicine could receive approval. These stretch over ten years. In very, very few cases does apparent success of stage one of medical research guarantee final success. However, I have read numerous articles by AIDS researchers claiming breakthroughs at the end of stage one. The reason for this is financial – to keep the money flowing and to get new funding. The more sensational, the more funding.

UNAIDS declares that nearly 38 million are living with AIDS and it is a threat to many more. This is a crisis. However, there is a far greater catastrophe facing 7.5 billion people: The unprecedented “Climate Emergency.” This is good reason for pouring in billions/trillions of dollars into research and attempted climate engineering. This article is a sensational appeal for funding. It is like those over confident AIDS researchers – who ignore the fact the the virus is the fastest mutating of all viruses – and claim a breakthrough at stage one in understanding the virus and finding a vaccine/cure. With AIDS it is easy to prove their claims are false – within ten years with three decades of failures. However, people are more moved by sensational reports rather than by empirical facts. Same goes for climate.

Some other points need close examination: the two primary authors work in the field of forestry, ecology and biology not the main sciences involved with study of climate; they write of mitigating climate change but is this either possible or affordable; and of course the give away that they are concerned with “transformative change” and “with social and economic justice for all.”

Steve Borodin
November 6, 2019 5:46 am

Untold human misery is certainly unavoidable if we go ahead with crackpot schemes like zero carbon.

By the way did these ‘scientists’ reveal any evidence? No, I thought not. ‘Scientists Sans Evidence’. A catchy phrase don’t you think?

November 6, 2019 5:48 am

An article in the Guardian was sent to me with lots of graphs I responded not thoughtfully that is was a load of c***. Can anyone point to a reasoned critique or can contributors to this site .

The Guardian article is linked below with many alarmist graphs which are intended to dupe people.

Reply to  Stacey
November 6, 2019 6:36 am

As I said in a comment earlier: They ‘discovered’ a simple way to make graphs look scarey: Create a highly exagerated vertical scale , and limit the horizontal scale to the period that best suits the story you want to tell. Some might call that propaganda.

It is a shocking manipulation of data and science.

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Oakwood
November 6, 2019 10:49 am

It is exactly the same method used by pushers of dubious trading services- show an amazing graph and shout LOOK!! There’s about the same level of accuracy and integrity too…..

Roger Knights
November 6, 2019 5:52 am

“replace fossil fuels with clean renewables”

1. They aren’t so clean, all things considered.
2. Nuclear’s not an option?

“impose carbon fees that are high enough to restrain the use of fossil fuels.”

Next: Duck—”yellow vest” pushback is incoming.
It’s odd that popular pushback against their impositions never occurs to these would-be little kings as a possibility, although it’s already happening.

Right-Handed Shark
November 6, 2019 5:57 am

I’ll see your 11,000 and raise you 31,487. And counting.

J. M. S. Martins
November 6, 2019 6:10 am

One of the reasons that lead me to resign my membreship in the American Institute of Biological Sciences was the shift towards the fashion buzzwords and the consequente abandoning of the real scientific issues and problems in the realm of Biological Sciences. In more than four decades of professional life I never had other agenda than the progress of my science and the extension of its benefits to all humans. I never used science to promote any political objective or agenda, always tried to keep things separated and isolated: one thing is my professional activity and the knowledge that can result from it, other things is my views regarding society, politics, religion, etc.

Unfortunately, breaking a centennial tradition, institutions dealing with the permanent record of science or with its extension to lay people (like Nature and Scientific American, respectively) and many learned societies have falen to the appeal of the first pages, being discussed in social networks, etc. But in science, not all publicity is good publicity.

Sponsoring a statement based on opinions and assumptions at best debatable, at worst proven entirely wrong, but certainly politically biased, is not what good professionals expect from an institution that should promote the highest intellectual and scientific standards and enforce them among its members.

And even worse: publicising a list of thousands of persons it calls “scientits” when a quick browse of it shows that many do not qualify to that title, not to mention their lack of qualifications to have a professional opinion on the subject mater.

I was sad, some years ago, when I decided not to renew my membership in the AIBS. Unfortunately, since then I have got many more reasons to not regreting that move.

Pat Frank
Reply to  J. M. S. Martins
November 6, 2019 10:42 am

It is sad business, isn’t it J. M. S., that nearly all scientific institutions have betrayed professional dispassion for advocacy, and integrity for politics.

The phenomenon is amazing to watch, and reveals some sort of deep and widespread psychological tendency to social conformity.

Scientists who yield science to politics. It seems to me in these, and no matter their brilliance, we see the population who are mere methodological hacks, rather than scientists who through principle hew to the standard of objective knowledge.

They do not have the courage of their commitment.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 6, 2019 1:41 pm

The system has been setup that if a young scientist pursuing a tenure track, or a mid-career scientist pursuing that next grant and under enormous institutional pressure to get it, don’t comply and submit, they can’t pay their mortgages and support their family and stay in their profession. So they betray the science and ethics for a paycheck. Powerful motivation. And when everyone else in the ideologically molded department is doing it… it seems okay.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 6, 2019 4:00 pm

Perhaps, Joel, but that doesn’t explain the officers of the APS and all the rest. These are prominent scientists whose protests would carry enormous weight. Yet they remain silent.

Worse than silent. They support the abuse.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Pat Frank
November 6, 2019 2:45 pm

The actions of Learned Societies, Chief Scientists and Establishment folk have been very disappointing. When you study their position papers and the lke, you find practically no person or body who has researched the global warming topic in any depth. I have looked and looked for signs that any of these people have dug into the science to anything like the depth that you and I – and many bloggers on WUWT – have done, as evidenced by formal or informal contributions.
You tend to find chirpings of a mutual admiration society. The various parties have made decisions, but the dominant decision has been to stick with the Establishment views. Those views were influenced by cells in academia, cells that are compromised because personal incomes depend on their research.
How to combat this lazy, shallow, disappointing outcome from Learned Societies etc.? The best I have been able to suggest is already in progress, Pat, thanks to your personal digging and publication. It entails pressing scientists to do what scientists should do, namely, proper, formal, published error analysis. My guess is that our Australian Chief Scientist would be rather upset if he took the time and effort to do error analysis on data that he has been generalising and publicising.
Discipline yourselves, scientists. At this time, you are acting badly, like accountants who have declined to engage auditors to help do a proper and customary job on error analysis. Geoff S

Pat Frank
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 6, 2019 4:20 pm

Geoff, if these people did the proper error analysis, they’d end with nothing to talk about. Maybe that’s why they avoid it.

I can see that sort of self-serving dishonesty among those invested in the story.

But, especially give the gravity of the offenses and abuses, I don’t understand why the scientific societies have been so incredibly incompetent. All of them.

As an aside, apart from my last set of reviewers, I’ve not encountered a climate scientist who knows the first thing about physical error analysis. And they meet exposure to it with hostility.

Roger Knights
November 6, 2019 6:31 am

“2. Short-lived pollutants. Swiftly cut emissions of … hydrofluorocarbons ….”

Tell it to Xi.

“3. Nature. Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, …, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.”

You mean like your compatriots have done in California?

Reply to  Roger Knights
November 6, 2019 12:07 pm

“3. Nature. Restrain massive land clearing. Restore and protect ecosystems such as forests, …, which would greatly contribute to the sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas.”
Roger, do you think it occurs to any of them that the things destroying ecosystems today are windfarms, solar arrays, biofuels and biomass?

November 6, 2019 6:32 am

Just a common or garden climate emergency eh? Call me when it’s the climate crisis and I’ll get in the baked beans and ammo……zzzzzzz

Schrodinger's Cat
November 6, 2019 6:46 am

I monitor climate science fairly closely and it seems to me that temperatures have been fairly steady for about two decades. Violent weather, droughts, flooding and wild fires are either diminishing in frequency or showing no trend. Climate models continue to be unfit for purpose. Increasingly, new papers attach importance to solar influences and changes in cloud cover. Overall, I would say that nothing has happened to cause more concern about climate change, if anything, the case for alarm is diminishing.

What has changed dramatically is the rhetoric. Where is the justification for an emergency? Most of these indicators have been around for years, showing the same story. is this a type of Group Think madness? Do these people really think there is an emergency?

Are they mainly environmentalists who accept every model projection without question? Are they political activists, cynically using climate alarmism to force economic and social change? Are they businessmen driving public demand for changes that will bring about tomorrow’s opportunities for subsidy harvesting?

Or are we now living in a bizarre world where a dwindling, tiny handful of people think the growing majority has gone mad? The Greens in this country have just announced that if elected, they would spend £100 bn per year for the next ten years fighting climate change. Amazingly, that is no longer seen as an outrageous suggestion by many. I sometimes think that I am the one going mad.

November 6, 2019 6:54 am

Yawn …. been going on since the first Earth Day in 1970 – none of us should be here now.

Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

Terry Shipman
Reply to  BruceC
November 6, 2019 10:01 am

This is exactly why I don’t pay any attention to these gloom and doom forecasts. These climate change morons have no credibility since they have always been wrong. They can’t predict anything right. They are wringing their hands over a bit of ice melt in Greenland? Good grief. A simple check of history will tell them the Vikings colonized Greenland around 1,000 AD and eventually were frozen out by the Little Ice Age. Don’t these dumb nuts know there was a whole lot less ice in Greenland when the Vikings were there?

Geraldo Lino
November 6, 2019 6:56 am

How is it possible that so many adult people with science degrees subscribe to such amount of garbage? If duly implemented, their guidelines for a “safe future” are a sure recipe for a civilizational setback. It’s like these disoriented people who are rejecting air travel (like her patron saint Greta), meat consumption as a source of proteins and a lot of other niceties of the modern industrialized world. I was thinking of calling them neo-luddites, but it seems that a new and more apt term is needed.

Tom Abbott
November 6, 2019 7:08 am

From the article: “[Human-caused] Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected.”

A blatant lie that he couldn’t prove if his life depended on proving it.

Hokey Schtick
November 6, 2019 7:11 am

Right, so we need to kill everybody to save everybody.

Let’s start with Extinction Rebellion. Cull them, and we are well on the way. They won’t object, surely. A small price to pay for the planet.

The 11,000 scientists, and their families, they will also need to do the honourable thing.

Let’s see how things look after that lot have shuffled off. Might be enough to avert catastrophe.

Andy Mansell
November 6, 2019 7:14 am

Whoa, whoa, haven’t I just been reading on here how more trees and plants are bad? Now they’re good again within minutes? I can’t keep up with this…but then I’m not a scientist, just a normal person.

November 6, 2019 7:18 am

Another outstanding example of “The end of the world!” was Millerism.
Which with the authority of scripture calculated that the world would end on October 22, 1844.
The hysteria spread like an emotional rush encompassing the Eastern States as well as England.
And when the end did not happen, true believers were stunned.
That dreadful day has been called the “Great Disappointment”.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
November 6, 2019 12:26 pm

Good history, thank you. Of course Miller went back and recalculated another date that also failed. Harold Camping of Family Radio predicted the end and when that date failed recalculated another date that also failed. There is nothing new under the Sun. The alarmists keep saying that we only have X years and when that date fails they recalculate and scream X + Y years, which will also fail.

John Bell
November 6, 2019 7:33 am

However, Newsome himself will continue to use fossil fuels, of course, because he is special.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John Bell
November 6, 2019 2:02 pm

And wears a snazzy hat.

Marcelo Santos
November 6, 2019 7:44 am

What about 31 thousand warning against alarmism?

It burns
November 6, 2019 8:07 am

Shift goals away from … the pursuit of affluence.

Bite me.

November 6, 2019 8:12 am

Is this Christopher Wolf the Connolley little helper IRWolfie who was contributing actively to the deletion of Marcel Leroux page on Wikipedia?

November 6, 2019 8:18 am

Its quite fun searching the list.
Search on phd and you find 999+ and counting
Search on postdoc or post-doc 885
Search on Curator 59 including 2 curators of butterfly collections
18 philosophers
24 distinguished professors
and (as mentioned above) 1 Mickey Mouse
no Michael Mann – perhaps he is Mickey Mouse in disguise!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  alankwelch
November 6, 2019 11:59 am

Who’s the leader of the gang that practices deceit?
M-I-C, K-E-Y, M-A-N-N..
bugger, it doesn’t scan.. 🙁

John C
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 7, 2019 7:24 pm

M-I-C, H-A-E, L-M-A-N-N
Michael Mann, Michael Mann…

November 6, 2019 8:24 am

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ……………….

This is ripe shit that a rational (and intelligent) person couldn’t derive from the altered-mind state of their wildest dreams.

Stargrazzer (CCB)
November 6, 2019 8:28 am

We can all give an Opinion:
Agree with most comments I read above, the 11k fellow ‘scientists’ who have declared their confirmation bias & therefore should IMHO pave the way and march to the nearest volcano along with the priests of Climate Cult and offer themselves to Gaia to start this process, which is what it seems the elites want to reduce population to 1/2 Billion except they forget that these ‘others’ in the 7 billion sacrificed produce consumables for their ultra deluxe lifestyles.

November 6, 2019 9:00 am

Critics blast a proposal to curb climate change by halting population growth.

Reed Coray
November 6, 2019 9:18 am

Why is it that after reading this thread one of the first questions that popped into my head was: “Is Dr. Thomas Newsome a distant relative of California’s governor Gavin Newsom?”

Martin Hovland
November 6, 2019 9:18 am

This ‘NEW ALARMISM ‘by modern scientists, was first made up in 1991, according to Tim Balls book of 2016: “…the objective was set out by Alexander King, an eminent Scottish scientist and president of the Club of Rome, who joined with his assistant secretary, Bertrand Schneider, in the 1991 publication: ‘The First Global Revolution’, which said: “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interaction these phenomena do contstitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.” The list of enemies or threats to the planet was designed to unite people. In reality, the challenge was to overcome individual nation-states that might oppose the establishment of one-world government or global socialism”. (Ball, p. 80-81, 2016)

November 6, 2019 9:40 am

How many are climate psychologists?……voting twice?

November 6, 2019 9:41 am

“untold human suffering”

Untold is the only thing they got right.

November 6, 2019 9:41 am

The money quote-

“Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points and nature’s reinforcing feedbacks (atmospheric, marine, and terrestrial) that could lead to a catastrophic “hothouse Earth,” well beyond the control of humans (Steffen et al. 2018). ”

Embarrassing for the 11,000 to be signers to that statement.

November 6, 2019 9:50 am

Getting more eco points leads to a much larger carbon footprint from increased travel, promotions, and extra wealth effect. So it pays and it burns.

November 6, 2019 9:56 am

WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE .. some day

November 6, 2019 10:03 am

The EIA states that 1,559 MMmt (million Metric tons) of CO2 was produced by transportation in the US in 2018. The vast majority was burned in cars, trucks and busses. Guessing at, at least a 1,000 MMmt was for cars and trucks the reduction in CO2 by switching to CNG (or LNG) would result in a minimum 500 MMmt a year reduction in CO2 in US carbon dioxide emissions. Preventing political extremists like Cuomo from blocking NG pipelines could expand clean affordable NG heating for new homes and conversions from oil. Unless I’m wrong the only downside would be for politicians who would loose some of their control over our lives.

Reply to  Jon O Beard
November 6, 2019 1:32 pm

If they really want to cut CO2, they could stop using electric cars.

* Date: 23/04/19

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Jon O Beard
November 6, 2019 2:00 pm

Catalytic converters produce the CO2. Get rid of those and CO2 emissions go down. Now, the other really bad emissions go back up but hey only CO2 matters.

John Robertson
November 6, 2019 10:10 am

I seem to recall that the petition to Ban DiHydrogen MonOxide garnered a far greater number.

Yawn about cuts it.
Who are these deluded children and who/what defines them as scientists.
Is there any evidence that any one of them is familiar with the use of the scientific method?

November 6, 2019 10:20 am

Here’s the thing, unless these 11,000 ‘scientists’ are willing to be the first to step into the suicide booths to save the planet, then I have serious reason to doubt their sincerity. We can make the booths nice and painless, push the button, it’s flooded with N2. The corpse drops into a refrigerated capsule for delivery to a hospital where they can be recycled into organs for donation. See, it’s a green operation, we’re recycling.

As a geologist working in the oilfield, I don’t count myself as a scientist and they count me as a Minion of Satan (Man do I miss my Halliburton coveralls sometimes), but I have enough of a background to see through the flimsy crap they push on the world. I applaud those actual scientists who are pushing the bounds of our knowledge and following where the science leads and not where a political agenda tells them to go. Science doesn’t require faith, but I do have faith that there are good people, doing real science and expanding our knowledge of the universe. My hard hat is off to you.

November 6, 2019 10:24 am

“Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected.”
PROVE IT! Assertions are meaningless if you are recommending draconian life style changes!

But in a movement that started out scaring us about “Global Warming”, what do you do when hard data about actual temperatures show a leveling off? Why simple, you add more metrics that have nothing to do with warming!

…a “broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather

Monitor fossil fuel subsidies? (and who gets to define what a subsidy is?)
Tree cover loss? (why not measure the additional greening of the earth that could help feed the population growth you are so worried about?) BTW has he noticed that the developed countries that use fossil fuel have a negative population growth?
Economic losses due to extreme weather? Why not the actual frequency and intensity of “extreme weather”?
Meat consumption? (show me the paper that quantifies the resulting difference in global temperature if we all went vegan tomorrow)

Apparently there are 10,999 other academics who are starting to worry that the gravy train may be running out of steam.

Mike Dubrasich
November 6, 2019 10:46 am

It may be interesting to note that these authors have already caused untold human suffering and environmental degradation.

Thanks to Dr. Ripple and the OSU College of Forestry, Oregon has suffered under the Spotted Owl Plan since 1994, and really since 1989 when the Federal forests here were locked up.

The cost to Oregon has been $10 billion per year for 30 years, a total of $300 billion dollars to our economy. Over that time Oregon has led the nation in unemployment, business bankruptcy, mortgages in arrears, home foreclosures, food insecurity, and every other measure of economic decline. Our high school graduation rate is perennially the lowest in the US as poverty inflicts many wounds to families.

Meanwhile the spotted owl population has crashed by 80% or more, from more than 20,000 birds in 1989 to less than 3,000 today.

More than 5 million acres of Oregon spotted owl forests have been incinerated in Let It Burn fires, most but not all on Federal forests which are 60% of all Oregon forests (the Feds own 53% of the land in Oregon). The Feds have even carpet bombed (with helicopter-launched aerial incendiary bomblets) green old growth spotted owl nesting stands.

All this failure, suffering, and destruction has been done with the support and encouragement of the OSU CoF and their quackastic faculty. There is not one actual professional forester on that faculty (imagine a medical school with no doctors, a veterinary school with no vets, an architecture school with no architects, a beauty school with no actual trained beauticians, and you get the picture.)

Fraudulent pseudo science is not harmless. Much damage results when self-aggrandizing quacks and phonies are given the key to the public treasury. The alarmist/charlatans are exceedingly dangerous to people, birds, forests, and every living thing.

John Endicott
November 6, 2019 10:51 am

More than 11,000 scientists endorse six steps to address climate emergency

and yet, the missed out the very first and most basic step of all:
1) Prove that there actually is a climate emergency with actual observable, irrefutable facts (hint: models are not poof of anything and are not facts in any way shape or form).

Until you succeed in proving that one single important step, all the rest of their steps is garbage.

November 6, 2019 10:58 am

Sooner than later, most likely sooner, at least one of these “biologists” or “ecologists” is going to stand up at a meeting and shout, “Hitler was RIGHT! We need a Global Auschwitz Solution!” And the whole audience will stand with roaring applause and cheers and stomping of their feet on the floor (beer hall style).

Ha ha.

November 6, 2019 12:18 pm
November 6, 2019 12:18 pm

Tree cover fiddle!!
I found this rather astounding statement in the Supplemental information:
“tree cover loss does not take tree cover gain into account. Thus, net forest loss may be lower than the reported numbers.”
Well, quite possible, net tree cover is increasing! They haven’t bothered to assess it. Even warmists accept there has a significant increase in greening due to increased CO2. A recent NASA study states: “A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.”

Peter Bickle
November 6, 2019 12:54 pm

I got the list of 11000 scientists from

On p203 there is an entry as one of the 11000 as Mouse, Micky – Professor Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind – Namibia.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Peter Bickle
November 6, 2019 4:25 pm

Clearly, after a pizza the action.
Canales, Valeria Customer Service Dominoes

Berndt Koch
November 6, 2019 12:59 pm

So Dr Newsome has actually been to the School of Life?? I thought that was just a meme..

He must have missed the course ‘Reality 101’ and gone straight to the Models are Everything curriculum

Joel O'Bryan
November 6, 2019 1:08 pm

“… human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events”.

So those are the metrics they want “corrected.” Let’s examine them.

1. Human population growth – So whose population growth do they want to correct????

Most of the Western countries where they are trying to enact their destructive energy policies on are already at “replacement-only” levels for the cultural majority population. It is only through immigration now that most Western countries are even growing. That’s immigration from the 3rd World shitholes those immigrants are fleeing because of bad (socialist paradises like Venezuela, a country with more natural resources than most of the rest of South America) in governance, corruption, religious wars (Syria, Yemen) and the famines and death those conflicts bring. And if it is China, India, Pakistan, and Africa that they want to control their populations, that is very white racist of them. Eugenics anyone?

2. meat consumption – So whose meat consumption? The protein starved 3rd World? Or the middle class of the West socieities? I doubt seriously the rich elites in Cal or NY are denying themselves a big steak whenever they feel like it. This anti-meat movement is little more than a prescription for Soylent Green for the masses. And we know where that protein i sourced. And for the vegan grass munchers, where do they think those luscious green salads, berries, nuts, and fruits they like come from? And how do they arrive in nice clean displays at their favorite “local green” grocers from hundreds or thousands of miles away?

3. tree cover loss – Really?
The switch to fossil fuels over 100 years ago saved our remaining old growth forests from continued cutting for fuel. Logging now is just for paper and construction lumber. If we drastically cut back on fossil fuel use as they advocate for, where do these genius morons think the common folks are going to get their fuel to stay warm and cook? Just like what happens in fossil fuel-deprived and electricity-poor Africa. They cut down the forests for fuel. Massive regrowth of North American forests occurred in the 20th Century exactly after we switched to coal, oil, and natural gas for our fuels. Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon is also being driven by Europe’s demand for biodiesel and bio-ethanol for their “green” fuels. These “scientists” are a bunch of morons if they think otherwise.

4. “energy consumption” ??? What a catch all meaningless statement. If they were worried about “energy consumption” of fossil fuels, they’d be advocating for nuclear power. Dumb doesn’t even begin to describe that metric.

5. “fossil fuel subsidies” – Maybe they are alluding to the Social Costs of Carbon (SCC)? A completely meaningless metric that totally ignores the massive far-reaching benefits of fossil fuel use by mankind. Any analysis that only considers costs and not benefits of a policy or action is simply a disingenuous deception. I suppose these idiots “scientists” would like their lives and their families’ lives to return to that wonderful period when life as “harsh, brutish, and short.” Or maybe they simply want that to happen to someone else, just not them? Immoral would be a good word to describe these “scientists.”

6. “annual economic losses to extreme weather events”
Let’s see — Roger Pielke, Jr has already taken this argument apart and shredded it. Our economic losses are only increasing (on a centennial time scale) because more people and more infrastructure are continually moving to and building in vulnerable areas. Not because extreme weather events are getting more frequent. Nothing to do with fossil fuel use. There is no trend in extreme weather events. And if they think just by reducing CO2 emissions that extreme weather events will begin to decline or lessen, well these moron scientist also must believe in magic and voodoo tricks. In fact our economic strengths and wealth and use of fossil fuels makes us more resilient, better able to cope, evacuate, and recover afer natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, blizzards. Do these scientist-acting morons think that eliminating fossil fuel use will help or hurt in those recoveries?

Overall, those signatories to that moronic statement are all a bunch of morons, charlatans, rent seekers, and in general – idiots. They are not scientists. Doing any of these things they advocate for regarding fossil fuel use would simply be far more destructive in the long run.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 6, 2019 2:08 pm

Excellent points, Joel, but it’s not just the Amazon that is being cut down for biomass and biofuels.

The Obvious Biomass Emissions Error
February 7, 2019
…In the name of cutting CO2 emissions, four of the six Drax generating stations were converted to burn wood chips over the last seven years, at a cost of £700 million ($1 billion). Hailed as “the biggest decarbonization project in Europe,” this facility now consumes about 9 million tons of wood pellets per year, shipped 3,000 miles from the US and Canada.
An estimated 4,600 square miles of forest are needed to feed the voracious Drax plant, with acres of forest felled each day.

Green Shock: Entire Forests Being Murdered to Produce Wood Pellet Biomass
…Huge areas of hardwood forest in the state of Virginia are being chainsawed to create ‘biomass’ energy in Britain as the government attempts to reach targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in efforts to tackle climate change, an investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches has found…
It’s not just in these places but in Europe and Australia where old growth forests are being chopped down for wood pellets so Greens can feel virtuous that they’re not using coal and bask in the glory of meeting their Paris Accord targets even as they increase CO2 and actual emissions of real pollutants.

Bruce Cobb
November 6, 2019 1:28 pm

Regarding tree cover, large areas in New England which used to be farmland have reverted back to forest. True, some has been developed, but I’m guessing 90% or more hasn’t.

November 6, 2019 1:40 pm

Carrying out these actions will cause massive human misery. Millions will die, tens of millions will be impoverished. It’s quite possible that will be tens of millions and hundreds of millions.

Are these “scientists” unable or unwilling to see that?

George Steiner
November 6, 2019 1:49 pm

There are approximately 2 million scientists today. Give or take a few tens of thousands.
In fact it is said the 95% of the scientists of all times are alive today.
So 11,000 is about what 5 or so percent?
Much of them is in the science of basket weaving.
This is a nothing burger.

November 6, 2019 2:20 pm

“THOSE who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire
“MUCH that passes as idealism is disguised
hatred or disguised love of power.”
– Bertrand Russell
“THE urge to save humanity is almost always a
false-front for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken

November 6, 2019 2:25 pm

This is what the environment looks like in nations with low GDP who can’t afford fossil fuels. This is particularly stark as it is next to a nation which does use fossil fuels.
UNEQUIVOCAL Evidence Of Industrial Wind Farms’ Horrific Toll On Wildlife →

The greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, rather, poverty.
THE border between Haiti and The Dominican Republic is a great example of this.
GUESS which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use “dirty” fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?

November 6, 2019 2:56 pm

11,000 signatories, eh?
As some guy who was just a clerk in a patent office said once — “why 100 authors; if I were wrong then one would have been enough.”
So far —
The polar Bears are thriving.
The penguins are thriving.
The rate of extinctions has hardly varied.
The poles are still frozen.
Glaciers are still on the mountains.
Earth is greening.
Most people are living longer.
Kids are still seeing Winter snow.

But now we must all screech “Climate Emergency”!
So exactly WHERE is the problem.
Just show me where?
Where is the verified correct evidence to show that the climate changed because of human atmospheric CO2 emissions?
Exactly WHERE has the climate (not weather) changed because of humans?

IMO, increasing atmospheric CO2 has been a benefit as it helps plant life green the planet.
Hopefully atmospheric CO2 will rise to 600pmm, or above, before the solar minimum causes a severe shortening of the growing season.

November 6, 2019 3:56 pm

World scientists declare a climate emergency

Maybe they saw the super scary PIOMAS results!!

November 6, 2019 5:28 pm

It’s April Fools Day right? What a joke!!
“leave remaining stocks of fossil fuels in the ground”
i.e. immediately abandon your car and start walking/riding. Switch off your heating/cooling now.
Discard your phone. Switch off all lights.
“curtail the extraction of materials”
i.e. No more planes, ships, trucks, TVs, concrete, plastics, high rise buildings.
Ah, life was so much better back in the 1750s.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Robber
November 7, 2019 3:37 am

I think Gretra tried that. It doesn’t work.

November 6, 2019 7:25 pm

So now we’re doomed 11,000 times.

How much more doomed can we be?

November 6, 2019 7:53 pm
Reply to  Tweak
November 6, 2019 10:11 pm

From your link..they plan on… ”•Removing signatures of individuals who are non-scientists;
•Removing signatures with no associated professional position or institution.

I wonder what will be left seeing some were hypnotists and naturopaths!?

Clarky of Oz
Reply to  Mike
November 7, 2019 12:10 am

Saw a headline in the Australian Newspaper on-line site that the petition had been “blocked” because of concerns over the signatures. The newspaper site is pay walled so no further information available.

November 6, 2019 10:14 pm

As a scientist and science teacher who could’ve chosen to do honours under Prof Andy Pitman (about 20 years ago), I’ve known for at around 20 years that this was fraudulent science. His calling to the 3rd year Uni Atmospheric science course students who had a GPA high enough to do honours with him (including me) was;

it doesn’t matter if it’s (we’re) right or wrong – I (we) won’t be here in 100 years.

Of course the bracketed bits I’m uncertain about – but the rest is an absolute truth I will never forget because I did a science degree for the main purpose of finding out the truth and getting a job of course and this statement was like sacrilege to me – because as an extremely naïve science student I so wrongly had assumed that science was about the truth – yes they are charlatans –
Their reputations and their livelihoods are at stake – BIG TIME – it’s too late for them to come clean- and sometimes I wonder if they actually believe their own BS factor – really bad disreputable science breaks my heart

November 6, 2019 10:43 pm

Great news for me and many others.
I have a B.Economics so I guess I am a Scientist too?
One thing I can guarantee about this “opinion piece” (Paper? Surely you joke?) is that there is still no Statistically Significant study linking CO2 to Global Warming, and that was the IPCC’s Hypothesis.
I think Gav tricked up an r value of about 0.8 but that was typical trickery!

November 7, 2019 3:33 am

The original namelist was deleted but you can download it here:

David Sinclair
Reply to  Tom
November 7, 2019 5:45 am

Colder weather = more disease, more illness, more deaths. More people die from cold than from heat. Mostly less well-off folks, and elderly – who can’t afford to heat their home because the price of oil went up, or no oil, and the cost of electricity went up.

During the medieval cold period from rough