To quote a Facebook friend of mine: Yawn.
More than 11,000 scientists endorse six steps to address climate emergency
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
MULTIMEDIA
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
“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?
Andrew
Lots of alarmism and practically no specifics, We all know that extreme weather has had zero correlation with rising temps.
“untold human suffering” is unavoidable
==========
The Buddha already told us that, 2500 years ago.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/05/climate-crisis-11000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering
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.
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…..
“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.
I’ll see your 11,000 and raise you 31,487. And counting.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pat,
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
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.
“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?
“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?
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/millerism
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.
However, Newsome himself will continue to use fossil fuels, of course, because he is special.
And wears a snazzy hat.
What about 31 thousand warning against alarmism?
http://www.petitionproject.org
Shift goals away from … the pursuit of affluence.
Bite me.
Is this Christopher Wolf the Connolley little helper IRWolfie who was contributing actively to the deletion of Marcel Leroux page on Wikipedia?
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!
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.. 🙁
M-I-C, H-A-E, L-M-A-N-N
Michael Mann, Michael Mann…