An Analysis Of The 11,000 ‘Micky Mouse’ Climate Scientists

Reposted from Synthesisr

November 13, 2019

Climate Change

An Analysis Of The 11,000 ‘Micky Mouse’ Climate Scientists

Climate change scientists Micky Mouse

It’s because Climate Change!

“The further society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

George Orwell

Did you catch the usual gullible mainstream media (MSM) “news” outlets pushing the recent climate alarmism, coming from 11,000 so-called and supposedly knowledgeable scientists? Naturally, these platforms were particularly keen to propel the propaganda, with their usual blusterous fanfare of hot air and evocative imagery masquerading as journalism. ‘Climate Crisis’ and ‘Climate Emergency’ being the alarmist phrases. For example, our very own biased, £5 Billion organisation of left-wing agitprop BBC ran the unequivocal headline,“Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say scientists”. Notice also the emotive imagery to nicely round off their ‘fake news’:

BBC climate change emergency fake newsSourced from

Reading the ‘Most Popular’ comments on the BBC article also highlights the climate change GroupThink perfectly, with the actively-uninformed already regurgitating nonsense about ‘Donald Trump’ along with usual rabid socialist slurs of ‘Climate Change DENIER’ and ‘Flat-Earthers’. One KoolAid-sipping commenter even dares a suspicious reader to look at the list of signatories; knowing full well most people won’t bother scrutinising the latest sermon from the quasi-religious, climate change death cultists I blogged about last month! Well I have, and ‘Steve’ will soon be feeling very stupid…

‘Steve’ hopes people will just swallow what they’re told…

We live in worrying times! THE END IS NIGH!!  Well, that is until you look beyond the headlines with the most minimal of effort. For example, here is a typical example of who qualifies these days as a ‘scientist’ these days in the thoroughly-discredited field of Climate Change:

Professor Micky Mouse, from the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, Namibia.

Yes, that is true, I shit you not. A screengrab of the relevant page of Version 1 of the public list of signatories is shown below, before they corrected it through embarrassment.

Professor Micky Mouse, climate scientist

Source: BioScience Journal

Should you want to read the original article (sick buckets at the ready!), the original “research” is located here. Naturally the alarmist MSM won’t link to it directly, as they don’t want you to scrutinise for yourself and highlight their abject failure of journalism. I attach their original published list of signatories to this page for your convenience/scrutiny.

Original Signatory List from Ripple et. al. 2019 Download

Notably, it is in the ‘Viewpoint’ section of their chosen journal, BioScience. This is defined by the journal themselves as a non peer-reviewed opinion piece, i.e. not actual new or published scientific research. Here’s their first paragraph, fully laden with unscientific and baseless assertions, as a taster of the subsequent alarmist disinformation:

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”

So, Did ‘11,000 Scientists’ Actually Declare A Climate Emergency?

Manmade climate change

“The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.”

George Orwell

NO! It was a big, fat LIE.

That is of course, unless you live in a make-believe world where ‘Micky Mouse’ is a scientist, like the activists pushing their climate-alarmism opinion piece did! Lolz! Not the first time I’ve personally discovered and analysed the outright lies of the climate change propaganda machine, such as with the ‘97% Consensus’ myth.

Although this addition of fictional and cartoon characters generated a lot of ridicule of the authors, again showing up the lax quality control and so-called ‘peer review’ in the politicised field of ‘Climate Science’, the Micky Mouse was just the tip of the incredible iceberg.

I was inquisitive (and boring!) enough to go and read the original publication and download their list. I suspected foul play, mindful of it being the 10-year anniversary of ‘ClimateGate’ which exposed the careful deception behind-the-scenes of the climate research machine.

The list of signatories is published in a torrid PDF format that makes replication and reanalysis of their results very difficult; an ironically typical trick of climate “science”! Here’s the original file, try and put THAT into Excel (any ideas welcome). I found when trying to copy the table, it put all data, page by page, into just one column. So I sampled all individuals on the first 14 pages of the signatory list. This sample included 469 of the 11,258 named signatories, so is well above that needed to be representative of all signatories (link to check for yourself) at the 95% confidence interval and accurate to within a 5% margin of error.

Here’s a table summarising the shameful results. Do these look like ‘scientists’ to you? ‘Researcher’? Students? Retired folk? Individuals with no credentials listed whatsoever? Individuals with their profession unspecified, merely listing in what field they work, such as Psychology?

Climate science 11,000 sample

Sample of the 11,000 ‘Scientists’ warning of climate change doom. Lols.

More astounding is that even of those whose profession was listed as a ‘scientist’ or ‘professor’ were so in a COMPLETELY UNRELATED FIELD to understanding the basis of the climate change hypothesis! Lest we forget the absurd speculative hypothesis underlying all this hype: The miniscule (0.01%) amount of manmade CO2 emissions drive global temperatures and climate change.

Below is a word cloud of my 469-strong sample, using the researcher’s field called ‘PROFESSIONAL POSITION AND/OR DISCIPLINE’. The bigger the word, the more frequently it appeared. Notice all the unrelated fields and non-scientist professions? Notice how big the words ‘Researcher’ and ‘Student’ are? Notice how small the words ‘Scientist’, ‘Climate’ and ‘Physics’ are? Seems more like they had a whip round among already-indoctrinated university attendees across the various faculties.


Profession or discipline (for those who had one) from a 469 sample of the 11,000 “scientists”

Not a great start nor very scientific. But let’s take an even deeper look…

Interlude: The Dying Art Of Critical Thinking

“There are no lobbyists for critical thinking.”

Rose McGowan

As quick yet relevant interlude in this analysis, I like the above quote. It reminds me how I discovered over 10 years ago the never-ending stream of falsehoods espoused by the Groupthinkers and activists for ‘Climate Change’ (formally called ‘Global Warming’ until their predictions of temperature were falsified).

I believe critical thinking and an inquisitive, skeptical approach to what we are told is a valuable trait. This desire to search for the absolute truth is also the basis of the scientific method. Yet it is quite clearly being dangerously diminished as young people are increasingly being indoctrinated with left-wing ideals at schools/universities and taught by (predominantly) left-wing, teachers/lecturers with their baggage of ‘woke’ biases.

The impact of this is now known, to the extent that fewer than half of students now support freedom of speech. Many of those resisting this left-wing tyranny of ‘de-platforming’ and imposed belief systems are afraid to speak out with their own views. It used to be that students were taught critical thinking and encouraged to debate controversial topics to help develop their intelligent thought.

I believe this means we are therefore regressing as a race, not progressing, and so I fear for subsequent generations if this trend continues. Bringing it back to the quote, this is all arising from those who wish to ‘lobby’ governments to make others live by their personal beliefs; naturally, whether or not they are aware of their tyrannical tendencies or even ‘believe their own bullshit, they do not want their ideas challenged! But I digress…

Let’s Take A Deeper Look At This Recent Climate Scam…

Here are my TOP TEN specific examples of the most absurd from the list of 469 sampled signatories. Be assured, there are thousands more like this – the file is there if you want to check for yourselves! I had to really whittle this down after excluding other spurious signatories including: professors of psychology, managing directors of private companies, medical professionals, specialists in environmental politics (not science), computer analysts, a nephrologist (study of the kidneys), nutritionists and a techie at IBM. There are hundreds more from my sample who I noticed are simply in fields not even relevant to the dynamics of global warming.

Adman, Per: Associate Professor in POLITICAL SCIENCE, at Uppsala University. (I’m a scientist – in politics!)

Aidukaite, Jolanta: Chief Researcher, at Lithuanian SOCIAL RESEARCH Centre. (Social sciences are about opinions and behaviour, not climate!)

Albarracin, Delores: Professor of PSYCHOLOGY AND BUSINESS, at University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. (Business isn’t even a science, Psychology is not in the atmosphere)

Aldirmaz, Fatma: ACCOUNT AND FINANCE Phd., at Erzincan University. (Gotta count all that ‘Big Green’ climate money somehow!)

Aledo, Antonio: Associate Professor, Environmental SOCIOLOGY, at University of Alicante. (Sociology again!)

Amarello, Melissa: Executive Director, at ADVOCATES FOR SNAKE PRESERVATION. (Where Gore et. al. get their oil!)

Amenu, Kebede: FOOD SAFETY / VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY, at Addis Ababa University. (Clearly not climate science!)

Amy, Jean-Jacques: Emeritus professor of OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, at School of Medicine & Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels. (It’s warm & wet, but it ain’t climate change!)

Anderson, Victoria: Associate Professor of LINGUISTICS, at University of Hawaii Manoa. (Studying all that hot air from climate conferences maybe??)

Arom, Sima: Emeritus Senior Researcher, ETHNOMUSICOLOGIST, at CNRS. (Ethnic music to your ears?)

Doesn’t that just fill your soul with warmth and trust in the credibility of climate change news and “scientific research”!

For balance, I did actually find a handful of signatories who appeared to have relevant credentials on the matter. Here’s 10 of the most relevant, though there were much fewer of these (<25) in my sample of 469 than even the absolutely ridiculous ones…

Aas Wenche (sounds like my ideal girlfriend!): Senior Scientist, at NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research.

Abazajian, Kevork: Professor of Physics & Astronomy, at University of California, Irvine. (Finally, an actual physicist!)

Abessa, Denis: Professor – Environmental Sciences, at São Paulo State Univesity – UNESP. (Sounds legit)

Amadon, Alexis: Physicist, at CEA-Saclay / NeuroSpin.

Andersen, Mikkel F.: Associate Professor in Physics, at University of Otago.

Anderson, Jacob: Geophysics Research Scientist, at Boise State University.

Andre, Dirk: Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, at Freie Universität Berlin.

Andree, Walter: Applied Environmental Geologist, at Métis Nation of Alberta. (Geology, a longer-term view)

Armfield, John: Professor Emeritus (Geography, Atmospheric Sciences), at The Ohio State University.

Ashcro, John: Atmospheric Dynamics, University of Leeds.

OK, But Surely The ‘Scientific Consensus’ Still Exists on Climate Change?

Scientific consensus on climate change

Consensus is only claimed in climate “science”. Think on that.

“Consensus is the business of politics, not science.”

Michael Crichton

There is a big, brazen lie in the ‘Big Green’ climate industry that there is a ‘97% scientific consensus’ man is causing irreversible climate change. Obama even famously perpetuated the lie, with his quote saying “97% of scientists agree: Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous”. The research underpinning such propagandahas (quite easily) been unearthed as unscientific activists just fraudulently pushing their own opinions with tortured and cherry-picked data. Even if the ‘97% consensus’ among global scientists was true, Crichton further articulates the ridiculous assertion of ‘scientific consensus’ better than I can…

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It wouldn’t occur to actual scientists to talk that way.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.”

Or maybe you prefer a more succinct explanation of the scientific method, summed up by arguably the greatest mind that ever existed among real scientists…

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Albert Einstein

This whole fanfare of ’11,000 scientists’ is merely more alarmist activists trying to impose the disaster of Socialism to tax you more and restrict your freedoms. It is simply there to add to the incessant noise claiming the matter is settled; part of the endless stream of empty statements designed to hide the lack of actual scientific evidence demonstrating their speculative theory that CO2 drives temperatures.

Interestingly, the very same snake-oil salesmen of this opinion-piece have pulled this stunt before. In 2017, lead propagandist Prof. William Ripple et. al. played exactly the same ploy, with their ‘World Scientists’ Warning To Humanity’ op-ed. A cursory look at the dataagain shows the same lack of scientific credentials of signatories, let alone any related to the physics of climate changes. This was of course again met with the same, alarmist fanfare and imagery from their MSM accomplices. Conveniently, their publication and associated MSM fanfare was timed to coincide with the 2017 ‘UN Climate Change Conference’ in Bonn, Germany. What, you thought this incessant media barrage wasn’t organised to influence the public’s thinking? Bless…

In 2017, they managed to conjure up 15,000 Micky Mouse signatories. So their most recent opinion-piece has 4,000 (27%) fewer signatories compared to their first government-funded whip-round for a veneer of credibility. All the authors can therefore demonstrate at best, is a waning concern with the axe they grind. Folks, this incredulous disinformation is what passes for ‘climate science’.


But even if consensus is still your thing, why not take a look at more credible signatory lists, like the one at PETITIONPROJECT.ORG (image above)? This lists 31,000 REAL scientists with many thousands more who are actually relevant to the field of climate change, like physics, atmospheric sciences and geological perspectives. Predominantly, these are just from the USA; imagine how many more there are were they to reach out globally! Their messagecan be summarised as follows:

“Chill the f*ck out about all this global warming / climate change alarmist bullshit. Stop wasting our taxes. All you are doing is harming our environment and filling the pockets of climate-billionaire opportunists like Al Gore.”

Paraphrased from 31,000 scientific signatories at the Petition Project.

But of course these scientists wouldn’t put it quite like that: They are driven by science and evidence, not politics.

More From Synthesisr on Facebook…

I do this blog in my limited spare time to try and help others ‘cut through the noise’, maybe even help a few folk start ‘waking up’ from the climate change Groupthink. I receive no funding for this hobby, I just hate seeing people constantly be lied to and aim to push against the floodgates spewing disinformation (‘fake news’) to the public.

If you like what you read and want to look beyond the headlines, please check out the Synthesisr Facebook page to stay in touch with my musings on the daily diatribe we are fed by the mainstream, ‘woke’ media. You’ll need to ‘Like’ and ‘Follow’ to see my stuff, as the Facebook ‘Ministry of Truth’ with their associated ‘Fact Checkers’ suppress my content for spurious reasons. Presumably they do not like people pointing out inconvenient truths, like how the Emperor of Climate Change “science” has no clothes?

A Big Thank You

Speaking of my Facebook page, I would like to finish with a BIG THANK YOU to one of my ‘followers’, Elodie. She shared the original, Version 1 list of 11,000 signatories with me. I didn’t initially believe that Mickey Mouse was on the ’11,000 Scientists’ propaganda, thinking even the realm of climate misinformation couldn’t stoop that low. Unbeknown to me, when I scratched the surface for myself, I was reading Version 2, after the authors had done the typical climate science trick of disappearing raw data and hiding their evidence. This has inspired me to dig deeper into these ‘Micky Mouse’ scientists and completely destroy the credibility of the bogus claims of these propagandist charlatans. Thank you Elodie!

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patrick MJD
November 15, 2019 10:31 pm

Watch this video, before it disappears!

He breaks it down step by step. Shows the s@am for what it is.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 12:53 am

Great link. Hilarious!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 2:44 am

Here’s youtube format

Patrick MJD
November 15, 2019 10:36 pm

That 97% consensus originated in 2009 in an AGU survey where 75 out of 77 “climate scientists” said humans were the cause. J. Cook perpetrates that with his bogus “analysis”, and is even quoted as No. 1 reference at NASA on their climate consensus page.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 2:35 am

In 2008 Margaret Zimmerman contacted 10,257 Earth Scientists at academic and government institutions. 3146 of them responded, of them Zimmerman whittled it down to 77 of whom 75 gave the response she had predetermined.

So of the 10,257 she contacted 7,111 couldn’t be bothered and 3,071 didn’t agree with her hypothesis. so the real statistic is actually:

“98% of climate scientists don’t believe in man made global warming”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  neil
November 16, 2019 3:38 am

I think the point is the often reported claim that 97% of *ALL* scientists state humans are the cause of climate change. In reality it is just 75 based on the original survey.

Reply to  neil
November 16, 2019 8:08 am

Actually, the 97% only agreed that it has warmed a bit, and that man played some part in that warming.

They never agreed that warming was man made and they weren’t even asked if it was dangerous, so there’s no way they could have agreed with that claim.

Reply to  MarkW
November 16, 2019 10:18 am

And carbon dioxide was never mentioned. The manmade attribution to warming, in the minds of the respondents, may have been the result of agriculture, urban heat, or other causes. The implication now is that, not only is 100% of the warming due to Man, but it’s solely due to Man’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Totally bogus.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Piggs Peak
Reply to  jtom
November 16, 2019 8:52 pm


Correct, and apart from “greenhouse gases” it was considered that “land use changes” were human-caused and warmed the Earth in certain cases. So the quote about mankind contributing to warming was in general, correct. The assumption by some that all warming was human-caused and that it means GHG or CO2-induced warming is both a misinterpretation and a misunderstanding.

Rob JM
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 2:05 pm

Its a true Scotsman fallacy.
97% of “true” climate scientist believe in CAGW
If you don’t believe then you are not a true climate scientist.

Tom Foley
November 15, 2019 10:37 pm

Now can you do a comparable analysis of the petitions challenging global warming?

Petitions both for and against have been signed by people who have no research experience in climate science. Petitions both for and against have been scammed by opponents adding facetious or fake names. Why would you assume that either side would undermine their own argument by adding mickey mouse/star war signatures? Entire petitions are likely to be scams by the one side to make the other look stupid.

People on both sides should be keeping an open mind and focusing on solid, replicated research and stop wasting time on personal attacks and counter-attacks.


Reply to  Tom Foley
November 15, 2019 11:32 pm

Snopes, eh? Fail.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Joey
November 16, 2019 5:51 am

That’s exactly why I suggested analyses of all lists, pro and con, be done here, using the same method. So the results would be absolutely comparable, and we wouldn’t have to go to Snopes or other sites that you don’t trust.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 7:50 am


What other branches of science are advanced via petition?

sir padre
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
November 17, 2019 7:24 am

Japan has NO “vaccine mandates” and, when they stopped “vaccinating” infants, their SIDS rate dropped by half.
The human immune system isn’t “mature” until 7 years of age; how does forcing something that isn’t there work, exactly?
Why are vaccines exempt from the same “double-blind placebo” testing that EVERY OTHER DRUG must go through? Same reason mercury fillings are still being used by Dentists; money.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 15, 2019 11:49 pm

‘Petitions both for and against have been scammed by opponents adding facetious or fake names. Why would you assume that either side would undermine their own argument by adding mickey mouse/star war signatures? Entire petitions are likely to be scams by the one side to make the other look stupid. ‘

Certainly this is a valid point but don’t let us pretend the two sides are symmetric. Let’s remember that the ‘CO2 as a the driver of global warming’ thesis is a hypothesis that requires confirmatory evidence insofar as this can be provided in science. The onus for making that case lies solely with the proponents of alarmist AGW not with the default ‘other side’. The former have had themselves a free pass by cleverly using mass media to their advantage (bad news always trumps the good) in a demonstration not of science but of the power of mass persusasion. The reference to Crichton hits the nail on the head ‘We don’t need a consensus of scientists to agree that E=mc2.

Reply to  Miha
November 16, 2019 12:05 am

Thanks for sharing my post, I’m humbled to feature on WUWT.

I welcome any feedback/critique to improve my methods. Recently started out this summer as a writing hobby.

Apologies for the pseudonym, I have to protect my public-sector day job in U.K. as having dissenting views from mainstream Groupthink is uncomfortable at best. I have also received death threats on Facebook from angry climate cultists who react badly to having their beliefs challenged.

Kind Regards, Synth

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 2:54 am


“The research underpinning such propagandahas propaganda has (quite easily) been unearthed as unscientific activists”

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 3:18 am

Keep your head down & well done for not succumbing to groupthink.

A couple of points. 1. The term “Global Warming” bit the dust because it was not terrifying enough. No one is afraid of a slow warming.

2. The photo used by McGrath to illustrate the article on the bbc is ludicrous. It does not show anything to do with climate change. It shows a field of oilseed rape, which has had some standing water in one place, which has impeded germination of the crop. Now that the water has drained away (slow drainage not unusual in England’s claylands), there is a gap. This does not represent anything that anyone in the countryside will not have seen 100s of times.

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 4:03 am

Thanks Mark, I’ll correct that typo on my site later this evening.

Thanks Jit, yes when you are awake to their methods, it is a never ending disgrace!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 9:03 am

I would stay away from using silly words like “lolz” when you’re trying to present a serious subject. Or maybe you weren’t trying to be serious, not sure.

Also, just because someone doesn’t have the “right” credentials, doesn’t make their opinion meaningless. Ross McKitrick comes to mind. He’s not a climate scientist, but seems to have nailed the problem squarely on the head.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 17, 2019 12:53 am

Thanks Jeff, yes it was poking fun at ‘woke’ language.

I value evidence and well-thought-out opinions over any credentials; this blog I hope demonstrates the fallacy and weakness of the climate propagandists’ “call to authority” as part of the groupthink.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Miha
November 16, 2019 6:02 am

I agree. The alarms that the world is going to end if no action is taken in the next ten years are silly. But so are the claims that it’s all a hoax.

So, can we say: ‘We don’t need a consensus of scientists to agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas’?

If so, then the issue is will extra CO2 , in addition to all the other climate forcings, have an effect on the climate in the near future, say next 100 years? And how will that effect play out in different parts of the world (beneficial? deleterious? neutral?) Can we do anything? Do we need to do anything? I’d like to see everyone move away from attack and counter-attack and talk to each other calmly without resorting to conspiracy theories.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 9:05 am

“I’d like to see everyone move away from attack and counter-attack and talk to each other calmly without resorting to conspiracy theories.”

That’s the problem, Tom.

If you even ask the question of “do we need to do anything”, you’re instantly attacked. That’s how we ended up just sniping at each other from across the aisles.

Marcus Allen
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 9:52 am

What is it about the word ‘theory’ as in conspiracy theories that you do not understand?

Clay Sasnborn
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 11:55 am

Tom, please explain what happened to the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and did humans have anything to do with its melt? Was it a bad thing that it melted?
The melting of the Laurentide Ice Sheet shows Precedent that Earth’s atmosphere can have huge swings that are all caused by completely natural causes; i.e. puny mankind does not have the capacity to alter it.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 18, 2019 12:48 pm

Mr. Foley,

While all sensible persons should agree with your sentiments, you should remember that the hypothesis that man-made CO2 does have a significant effect on our ever-changing climate still remains unproven.

One does not need to be an expert in climate science to find flaws in the hypothesis. Because of their academic knowledge and/or their professional experiencc, many of those who post on this site have considerably more expertise in any particular aspect of climate science than do the proponents of the hypothesis. Hence the scepticism.

Unless and until all doubts are allayed it is criminal to waste so much money on a sole possible remedy (decarbonising) to combat a problem that may never occur.

Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 12:19 am

Hi Tom,

The thrust of my article is that although spurious characters like ‘Mickey Mouse’ made headlines (poor data quality), this was just the tip of the iceberg. Sure, vexatious signatories might slip through the net, and indeed this happens on both sides. But by approving and adding real ‘Ethnomusicologists’, Professors in Linguistics, Gynaecologists, students, retirees, individuals without any credentials, and other passers-by to the list of signatories, then presenting them as 11,000 scientists who know about the climate is plainly fraud.

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 5:52 am

And, “plainly fraud” is what stokes Tom Foley (See his post, above) and many other “believers”.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Tom Foley
November 16, 2019 5:32 am

A physicist not trained in climate science is more knowledgeable of the subject than a climatologist who is not trained in physics.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 16, 2019 4:12 pm

Maybe. One of the things that disturbed me when I worked at a large aerospace company was the number of guys who had a physics degree that believed in global warming. All of them had gotten their degrees from the Air Force Academy, and in any topic, they needed to know what the consensus was before they would discuss the topic – at all. At that point they were fixed as to what they would say. They never rocked consensus, even when teased about Galileo, Einstein, and others.

Consensus does matter to some scientists, although they tended to get eliminated from the interesting discussions.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 25, 2019 10:23 am

KaliforniaKook November 16, 2019 at 4:12 pm

Maybe. One of the things that disturbed me when I worked at a large aerospace company was the number of guys who had a physics degree that believed in global warming. All of them had gotten their degrees from the Air Force Academy, and in any topic, they needed to know what the consensus was before they would discuss the topic – at all.

Nothing new under the sun:

Tony Garcia
November 15, 2019 10:38 pm

So much for the much-vaunted scientific method; However, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater and examine the concept of climate change. We are all in agreement that climate does change. The fact that we have had several ice ages in the past, and probably have one in our future proves that. If reinforcement is needed, it would appear that large parts of the Sahara were lush and green within recorded historical times, yet today it is a barren desert. The current debate centers around whether the changes we are observing are natural or triggered by human activities, and it is apparent that we do not know enough to tell the difference. To be quite honest, mankind needs to be able to influence the climate, as I am not too sanguine about humanity’s ability to survive another ice age with civilisation intact. I also note that all known resources accessible with pre-industrial revolution levels of technology have been exausted, and should humanity drop to a pre-industrial revolution level of technology, I doubt that there will be another industrial revolution. Additionally, genetic research appears to indicate that there was a genetic bottleneck in our past, with all humanity descended from a very limited number of female ancestors (The seven European eves theory plus others from other cultures). Perhaps this could be the result of a catastrophic event that reduced humanity to a few survivors. This may be speculation, however the possibility exists and should be guarded against. Finally, how can we hope to change the climate of Mars to suit our needs when we do not understand the drivers of climate in the planet we are seeking to emulate?

Reply to  Tony Garcia
November 16, 2019 12:15 am

I agree, climate changes and we probably have a slight influence on things. I’m much more concerned about an ice age as the U.K. and Ireland would simply cease to exist, mostly under a mile of ice judging by last one!

The thrust of my article is that although spurious characters like ‘Mickey Mouse’ made headlines (poor data quality), this was just the tip of the iceberg. By approving and adding real ‘Ethnomusicologists’, Professors in Linguistics, Gynaecologists and others to the list of signatories and presenting them as 11,000 scientists who know about the climate is plainly fraud.

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 5:37 am

I especially liked your comment about Gore’s source of snake oil.

Were there any proctologists among the group or just exam subjects?

Reply to  Tony Garcia
November 16, 2019 8:57 am

Tony–IIRC, I read not too long ago that the average span for individual species runs about 250000 years. Could be that H. sapiens use by date corresponds with the next glacial advance.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tony Garcia
November 16, 2019 9:07 am

“The fact that we have had several ice ages in the past, and probably have one in our future proves that.”

Picking a nit. We’re still in the ice age. It hasn’t ended yet. We’re in an interglacial period. I think it’s important to get these things right.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Tony Garcia
November 16, 2019 9:38 am

Sorry to say this, Tony, but you haven’t kept up with the times. For the CAGW alarmists, the meme has morphed from “climate change” to “climate change crisis” (aka “climate change emergency”).

It seems that the phrase “climate change” was just to historical and too slow moving. It is now rather passé.

Tony Garcia
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
November 17, 2019 9:09 pm

Yet potentially human actions can have an effect on the climate. Take my favorite hobbyhorse, deforestation. The Sahara was once green and lush, and is now a desert. We also find that it shares a feature with the Atacama, in that it is cut off from the sea by mountains. The dryness of the Atacama is attributed to it’s lying in a rain shadow, that being that moisture laden air from the sea cannot get to it over the mountains, so all of it falls as rain or fog on the seaward side of the mountains. Where the deforestation bit comes in is that a sufficiency of trees planted on the seaward side might, via evapotranspiration, enable moisture to bypass the mountain barrier and penetrate to the interior. I can even subscribe to the climate change crisis if it will make people realise that not thinking things through is a recipe for disaster. As an example, here in South Africa municipalities have been cutting down invasive species that were especially water intensive (lots of evapotranspiration) in order to save scarce water. No thought was given to the fact that most of that water went into the atmosphere and came down as rain elsewhere. Now that elsewhere is no longer receiving that rain and is complaining of climate change emergency. In this case I believe the man-made label is appropriate, just the wrong cause has been chosen for the effect. Going back to the Sahara, I wonder if the effect could be reversed with some judicious replanting?

November 15, 2019 10:40 pm

What they post is GOOFY!

Mark Pawelek
November 15, 2019 10:58 pm

I hope the author of this analysis realizes there’s at least a second, and probably a third, edition of the list of 11000 “scientists”. Nor did BBC ever retract their article. Heaven forbid. They unpublished, rewrote it, republished, and now pretend it’s that same one. All without so much as a note to their readers.

I bet credit companies wish they could get away with that malarky with your terms and conditions.

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
November 16, 2019 1:33 am

Hi Mark, yes the BioScience ‘Viewpoint’ piece now has an updated version of the list, but they pretty much only removed the embarrassing ‘Mickey Mouse’ item.
All the best, Synth

November 15, 2019 11:07 pm

You can see an imported Excel Version of the V2 list here!AnqjldxUM4qzilJa3IR-S4y_JTKM?e=z8WXam
It looked correct but I did not verify it fully. Now you can apply the analysisi to all 11,000 signatories
I could not see a link to the original version but I assume it could be imported in the same way.

Reply to  JMarkW
November 16, 2019 1:25 am

Awesome, thanks Mark. I will take a look soon, I found it too time-consuming copy & pasting section at a time using their dreadful pdf of raw data… hence the 14 page sample analysis!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 6:14 am

Canales, Valeria
Her qualification convinced me.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 16, 2019 9:13 am

Indeed. And Ahmad Yani, Andi.

Or Ahumada, Andrea, who had trouble spelling her one-word qualification.

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 12:24 pm

Your analysis holds in the larger spreadsheet.

Beyond the simple “scientist” labels, it looks that most of the list are people deeply involved in the global warming scam or utterly dependent upon it.

There is a strange question about the data; make that a number of strange questions.
A) “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)“?
“United States of America (the)”?
“Philippines (the)”?
“Netherlands (the)”?

The data shows signs of editing.
Many different people may sign the “United States of America” as USA, US, America, etc. Someone has gone through and “corrected” their entries into one standard that includes “the”. Only, USA does not include “the” as part of the name.

It is likely that lists were distributed worldwide, on many websites. Then the lists were coalesced into one list with everyone on that list identified as being from the country of source.

It still leaves the question to what else has been “edited”.

Reply to  ATheoK
November 17, 2019 12:56 am

ATheoK, thanks for checking and another good point you make.

David Chappell
Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 1:12 pm

Even with apparently legitimate scientists it pays not to assume too much. Check out Prof Abazajian (at last a physicist) at
” I am interested in the origin, structure and composition of the universe and the fundamental physics governing it.”
It would be a big stretch to link any of his research interests to the climate.

Reply to  David Chappell
November 17, 2019 4:48 pm

re Prof Abazajian.. his ‘interest’ will have to last a long time..

Hubertus H.
Reply to  JMarkW
November 16, 2019 10:46 pm

I also was able to extract the table via OCR. Results are here.

Strange: pages 1 and 203 (where Micky Mouse is) are landscape, page 3 is rotated counterclockwise the rest clockwise.

November 15, 2019 11:13 pm

I counted about 230 people claiming to be physicists. The rest might as well be comic characters.

Even among physicists, few are likely to be able to define the GHE. The IPCC can’t. They radically changed their definition between AR4 and AR5 from vague to meaningless.

It’s not back radiation, its not a temperature bottleneck, and it’s measured in degrees not watts per metre squared.

Ron Long
Reply to  dai davies
November 16, 2019 2:17 am

dai davies, as one of your “might as well be comic characters” I would urge you to consider climate evidence as presented by geologists. Higher and lower sea levels present clear evidence in the geologic record, and signatures of somewhere around 100 meters higher and 250 meters lower sea levels are preserved in the geologic record. It is also possible to resolve rates of change. The basic claim of geologists, many of whom signed the Petition, is that there is no signal detectable against the noisy background of natural variation of climate on planet Earth. Signing petitions won’t stop the next glacial cycle of the ice age we currently live in.

Reply to  dai davies
November 16, 2019 5:08 am

I don’t think it’s fair or accurate, and indeed quite condescending, dai davies, to suggest that only the opinion of physicists counts. Climate change is very much a multi-disciplinary field. As a geologist / paleobotanist, I know more about climate change and complex whole-earth systems over long periods of time most other scientists. Biologists know a lot about, well, biological things e.g. plants, animals, ecosystems, photosynthesis, feedbacks etc. Chemists, meteorologists …… you get the picture.

Although we all understand a lot about our own little postage stamps, the climate is a complex system with many unknowns. How do you model it? Where do you put the error bars? How do plants react to more CO2 over what time scales in the real world? What will that result in? Physics may be able to answer what happens in a tightly regulated closed laboratory experiment – but that’s not the whole answer.

Reply to  Joe
November 16, 2019 8:00 pm

In my mind as a lay person with a lot of time invested in reading about the subject you hit the nail on the head here. The cultists try to simplify a very complex system (global climate) by cherry picking factors they can use to push their narrative, it seems to me. Just like they believe they can reorder the world’s economy over night without consequences. It’s numbs the mind how frigging stupid that is.

November 15, 2019 11:39 pm

Probably more people who count themselves ‘Scientists’ alive today, than all those who could have claimed the mantle in all of human history ?

There is of course a lag, as with CO2, before the fabled Man on the Clapham Omnibus realises that all that glitters may not be gold 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 12:04 am

No doubt I could take a similar petition question over to my nearby Tucson-UofArizona Gender/LGTBQ studies department and its associated classes and by the end of the day have 100+ signatures… if the question I presented to them met their their political/ideological leanings.
Multiply that by hundreds campuses across just the USA and it is easy to see why that 11,000 signatories is junk. Meaningless.

The real crisis is the intellectual crisis of critical thinking that today’s university and college faculty face now. That is of course most clearly seen as the Suppression of Free Speech and the Cancellation Culture of conservative or right-leaning speakers who may “trigger” the Left snowflakes into their SafeSpaces because they can’t handle different viewpoints and opinions on facts.

And that entire paper is a charade masquerading as science and journalism. Complete Junk for all the real signatories there. They got duped.

As for the universities… I do not know how they can recover. Their faculties are so dominated by Socialists and neo-Marxists at odds with the US public on most social issues.

When the educational product you offer (liberal education at universities/colleges) is of no or little value in society or for a job outside of a coffee house barista, who will buy it once that becomes known it is worthless?

The only thing I can see for the universities is massive collapse of entire departments as student enrollment plummets in the next decade. A real hard shake-out is coming for universities and colleges.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 1:27 am

Indeed Joel, we live in worrying times, good points. Synth

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 1:55 am

Indeed. I have been watching this trashing of academic reputation for years now.
The term “Scientist” no longer has much meaning these days and as for some of the educational establishments calling themselves Universities; I dare not comment.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 6:39 am

Joel, while I agree wholeheartedly with your comment I would actually expand and strengthen some of your points! It’s not that the Socialists and neo-Marxists are at odds with the US public; they are at odds with REALITY and common sense. The neo-Marxists, who I call Progressives, are in fact a fundamental, religious CULT who have replaced God with the STATE! Their religion is contrary to human nature and has never worked in human history, but they’re willing to give it another go; this time they’ll get it right! It actually has been shown to work; for ANT and BEE colonies! I guess it requires insect intelligence!

At the risk of sounding paranoid I have to wonder if the Red Chinese are not funding much of the new, multicultural and PC garbage with which our children are indoctrinated. It makes their goal of world domination ever so much easier if the average US college grad can’t think their way out of a wet, paper bag! The professors and other “true believers” don’t concern themselves with mundane trivia like gulags for religious believers or the murder of dissidents for organ harvesting; they know that they will be proven right, just like the Trotskyites and other factions in Russia! The massive production and exportation of fentanyl by the Chinese to the US is just an added benefit; it is culling out the deplorables and improperly edumacated at a rapid rate! Long live the Chinese Queen Bee!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 8:47 am

As a resident of Tucson for 50 years I have observed the decline in the education value at the
UofA. You nailed it.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 16, 2019 10:19 am

PC insanity may mean the end of American universities
By Roger Kimball, New York Post, May 31, 2019

“Once upon a time, universities were institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth and the transmission of the highest values of our civilization. Today, most are dedicated to the destruction of those values. It is past time to call them to account.”

November 16, 2019 12:32 am

Professor Micky Mouse, from the Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind, Namibia 😂😂 This is my new name and profession from now on 😀👍

Reply to  Sunny
November 16, 2019 1:37 am

This is ridiculous. Mickey Mouse is 91 years old and so would be retired.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  leitmotif
November 16, 2019 3:33 am

David Attenborough is older.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 16, 2019 10:07 am

He may not be retired, but his mind has already checked out.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 18, 2019 12:47 pm

In mouse years?

Bill Murphy
November 16, 2019 1:02 am

RE: “Psychology is not in the atmosphere”

Au contraire. Some of Psychology is way out in the far upper atmosphere. Well above the ozone. I have a theory that Psychology may even be responsible for the ionosphere, given that many Psychologists I have been unfortunate enough to meet are a few electrons short of a complete atom.

November 16, 2019 1:36 am

unfortunately, now behind paywall:

7 Nov: Australian: Scientists’ petition on climate crisis blocked over fake signatories
by Graham Lloyd
Dozens of signatories including Mickey Mouse and Harry Potter headmaster Albus Dumbledore from Hogwarts have been ­removed from an Alliance of World Scientists declaration of a “climate emergency”.
Access to the 11,000 name-petition that accompanied a statement of concern published in BioScience on Tuesday was blocked on Thursday.
A statement issued by ­Oregon State University said “an administrative error unfortunately saw the inclusion of a small number of invalid names”.
“We have to date removed 34 names from the original list, most of which were duplicates.”

Concern about the petition, which was heavily promoted internationally as a call for action on climate change, was sparked by questions about some of its celebrity signatories…
The first signature on the online list was Araminta Aadvark, professor of Zoology at Univer­sity of Neasden, UK.
Neasden University is believed to be a fictitious university promoted by the British satirical magazine Private Eye that was printed in Neasden…

Sydney University said on Thursday the petition was being managed by Oregon State.
An online link to the petition on Thursday said “access ­denied” and “you are not allowed access to this page”.
The page was later changed to “Viewing signatures is currently unavailable. We are working on the issue.”…

Despite the suspension of the petition and removal of names, Oregon State said the “weight of support” from the world’s scientific community for the declaration remained undiminished…

Stew Green
Reply to  pat
November 16, 2019 4:04 am

That is the original article entire text
UK readers are mostly able to view it via Pressreader and their local library card number.

November 16, 2019 1:47 am

Has anyone revealed how these signatures were obtained? Was it an online survey? Who was invited to take part? It seems strange that it should be referred to as a ‘study’.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Susan
November 16, 2019 3:31 am

In the link in the first post.

Reply to  Susan
November 16, 2019 4:06 am

Susan, you can check out their original request for ‘every man & his dog’ to sign their rubbish here:

Reply to  Synthesisr
November 16, 2019 9:45 am

Every man, woman and mouse I think you mean. Thanks for the link, I can’t identify it in the original post. How can this be taken seriously?

Stephen Richards
November 16, 2019 1:53 am

As all scientists know, if the subject has science in it’s title it’s not science.

Physics, Chemistry, biology. No sciencey thingmebob there

November 16, 2019 2:08 am

this was posted above from elsewhere, but I could not get the podcast to work.
this works:

Youtube: 23min29sec: RebelMedia: Ezra Levant: 11,000 ‘scientists’ warn about climate change? FAKE NEWS!
On last night’s episode of The Ezra Levant Show, we took a close look at the Canadians signing off on the latest media scare claiming that 11,000 scientists agree that we face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless things change fast. SPOILER ALERT! There are a lot of non-scientists here, and one name really made me laugh.

John Cherry
November 16, 2019 2:15 am

A nephrologist is actually a medical professional, aka renal physician – for what it’s worth.

Another Ian
November 16, 2019 2:38 am

One question – as a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists did Anthony’s dog Kenji sign to help?

Reply to  Another Ian
November 16, 2019 8:23 am

LOL. I didn’t think of that. Darn. It is closed for signatures now or I’d add “Kenji Watts” “Expert in Canidae Studies”.

Great idea but too late for us to get mischevious this time. I’m sure we will get more opportunities.

Stew Green
November 16, 2019 3:58 am

It’s interesting that the lefty groupthink “fact checkers” Snopes
do NOT have an article claiming that the “11,000 scientists” number is robust

November 16, 2019 4:19 am

If I had a time machine, I’d take all these twits who call themselves scientists back to the Carboniferous period, when oxygen levels were up to 35%. They’d die of Oxygen poisoning rather quickly.

I think they’re all trying to wipe out the entire human race with their slog toward lower atmospheric carbon. But then, that would include them – that’s how very stupid they really are. I doubt that any of them could tell you what happens when oxygen levels get too high…. 🙂

Reply to  john
November 16, 2019 9:39 am

3 times. Once before Aug. 10th, and twice after.

November 16, 2019 4:58 am

This climate BS is tied in first place for the world’s oldest profession. I have proof.

Here is a quote from a character named Boris Alotovkrap that appeared at Zero Hedge a few years ago. I have never forgotten it.

“In cave in rural France is painting circa 5000 BC, and is tell story. One day is rain much and lightening is loud and scary. Leader of cave community is explain danger of lightening and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for stopping of lightening. Every citizenry of community must bring it portion of berries and meat for sacrificial god and make incantation. Leader of cave community is so very smart, is not help hunt and gather, but is must make strategy and “guide” community for self-preservation technique. One day, citizen is look up and see is still lightening, but is look around and is still alive. Other is still alive. Lightening is come and go, and community is survive. Citizen is make comment at cave meeting and next day is fall in tar pit.

Leader of cave community is explain danger of tar pit and is predict end of world if citizenry is not work hard for prevention of tar pit…”


That was worthy of a medal of honor and a nobel prize.

November 16, 2019 5:05 am

I personally know three of the signatories from my country. They are excellent scientists in the Biology field and great persons. They just can’t know much about climate, except from looking at articles titles and abstracts and reading editorials from multidisciplinary journals like Science or Nature, plus the bombardment of climate porn the average citizen gets almost daily.

They sign out of misguided good intentions and expressing their personal opinions, but they are certainly not Mickey Mouse scientists. I can attest that they are very good scientists with long and distinguished careers.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 5:39 am

But lacking the good sense to not wade into a subject outside their own field of knowledge. Because when you do your undoubted good intentions will be misused.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 16, 2019 7:52 am

I would say well over 90% of the people here at WUWT are outside their own field of knowledge and that doesn’t prevent them from having an opinion and acting on it.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 9:23 am

I don’t have a field, so I can do ANYTHING!!

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 9:35 am

That is true, but they don’t have or use titles which are supposed to convey expertise.

Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 10:11 am

Someone’s “field” is not limited to what they studies in school.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 11:11 am

You may well be right. However, I’d venture the opinion that a graduate engineer or geologist is better qualified to assess the validity of claims from climatologists than a gynecologist or student. Some of us even avoid relying on just our personal opinions by citing references, or demonstrating failures of logic.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 16, 2019 3:16 pm

And most claims need a professional statisticians perspective.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
November 16, 2019 11:03 am

“A man’s got to know his limitations.” –Dirty Harry

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Javier
November 16, 2019 8:12 am

I suppose it is possible to be a “good scientist” and a moron at the same time.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2019 9:23 am

Sometimes it’s a requirement.

November 16, 2019 5:50 am

How many scientists graduate from the ‘average’ University each year? Hundreds to over a thousand per University, right? And how many university Science Departments would there even be within the G20 States alone? Thus about how many Scientists graduate from the G20 universities every year?

It’s waaaaaay more more than “11,000” each year, that’s for sure! And that process has been going on for over a century!

There are literally millions of Scientists on this planet, tens of millions probably, but almost but not quite none of them have signed this dippy little “Climate-Crisis” petition’s “Licorish All-Sorts” freak-show.

How surprising … and how pathetic as well.

Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2019 5:54 am

We have rising emissions, rising temperatures, and we’ve known this for 40 years and we haven’t acted – you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know we have a a problem,” said Dr Newsome.

Of course! Why haven’t we seen this? The logic is undeniable. When two things increase at the same time, one is causing the other to occur. It’s not rocket science. Even a kindergardener can see this!
As for the “we have a problem” part, well yes, Mr. Newsome, you and your cohorts certainly do. Hint: it’s between your ears. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see this.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
November 16, 2019 10:02 am

“..We have rising emissions, rising temperatures, and we’ve known this for 40 years and we haven’t acted – you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know we have a a problem,” said Dr Newsome…”

The CAGW narrative consistently demonstrates the disregard for the rule “correlation does not imply causation”, a.k.a. cause and effect.

Although the web page above associates the cause and effect rule with the statistics field, could it not apply in climate science as well? (I am not a scientist.) If indeed there are many variables involved in climate forcings and we still do not understand them all very well, applying cause and effect to a presumed relationship between CO2 and the warming we’ve seen since the end of the LIA seems highly irresponsible.

Not that Dr. Newsome would care if he has abandoned sound and honest science for an activist agenda.

Stew Green
November 16, 2019 6:05 am

BBC radio just had the latest edition of their in depth reporting prog From Our Own Correspondent.
In the past it used to very good, but now like a lot of BBC progs the reporters make great effort to Virtue Signal how *woke* they are.
So in the report on the Australian bush fires Phil Mercer tosses the PR words around “scientists say” “the deniers” etc.

son of mulder
Reply to  Stew Green
November 16, 2019 6:39 am

I’ve given up on the BBC for straight reporting. Virtually everything in their current affairs output has some form of spin on it with a whole glossary of BBC words and phrases. Examples like they will say either “Thinktank” or “Right wing Thinktank”.

November 16, 2019 6:10 am
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  john
November 16, 2019 9:31 am

Off topic

Dave O.
November 16, 2019 6:20 am

Unlike others, I have no problem with Mickey Mouse signing the paper. Mickey has as much credibility as any of the others that signed.

son of mulder
November 16, 2019 6:28 am

I looked at 61 connected with the top 3 UK universities Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London. Only 6 have credentials in Physics, Climate or Atmospheric related subjects. Of the 6, one is a professor (and one of the usual suspects), one a retired reader and the other four post docs. Most of the other 55 are ecologists, biologists, and zoologists mainly with fourteen being Phd students. Although argument from authority is very unscientific it would have helped them a bit.

November 16, 2019 6:54 am

‘This whole fanfare of ’11,000 scientists’ is merely more alarmist activists trying to impose the disaster of Socialism to tax you more and restrict your freedoms.’

Correct. It is an argument from authority.

“We have 11,000 scientists who say it is so, so you must believe it.”

There are people who readily submit to authority, and even more who uncritically embrace orthodoxy. So the declaration – “Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’” – will work on many people.

November 16, 2019 7:04 am

Someone needs to analyze the credentials of the signatories and publish a news article. “XX% of People Claiming to be Climate Scientists Actually Aren’t”

November 16, 2019 7:22 am

I tried it and it does work with that PDF. Once done I was able to open it in “LibreOffice Calc” and open source spreadsheet. I don’t have Excel handy but it should work.

November 16, 2019 7:26 am

Michael Mann didn’t sign off on this according to the list.

Gunga Din
Reply to  john
November 16, 2019 3:32 pm

They already had one Mickey Mouse.
Guess they didn’t need another?

November 16, 2019 7:40 am

This article illustrates the typical flaws in “scientific reporting”.

Remember that “science” articles in publications meant for the general population are an INTERPRETATION, usually by a NON-scientist, of research. The writer is probably not going to read past the “summary” sections.

They will then pass the information through their PERSONAL worldview and TELL you what the research says that supports their bias.

Whenever you see such articles you should try to find the ORIGINAL peer-reviewed publication and read the summary sections for yourself. If you have the expertise to dig deeper, do so. And check out those “peers” to make sure they are qualified in the SPECIFIC field.

And note, that in the case of this article, the article was published in the OPINION section of a peer-reviewed journal.

What I find when I find the original article is a summary full of “weasel” words. “It may” “additional testing needed to”, etc. Pretty much everything except: Our research conclusively proves…

Remember too that there are at least two types of science: Historical and Experimental.

When they report on anything that can NOT be reproduced by reproducing an experiment, the “science” is either historical or opinion. You can’t go back even 100 years to “reproduce” something. You can only go forward. If you want to say it takes 100 years to do something, you have to set up an experiment and wait 100 years for conclusive results.

In fact, when groups of scientists try to reproduce experiments, they often find that they can NOT or do not get the same results.

Scepticism is how you should approach any scientific reporting.

Abolition Man
November 16, 2019 7:51 am

Thank you, Sythesisr! A great examination of the type of fraud so common in the Climatology religion! Skeptics need to shut our yaps or we will be excommunicated, harassed and killed until we are dead! Climatology is just the latest hoax by the Progressives to PROVE once and for all that world-wide Socialism must be instituted immediately to save us from ourselves. They will, in sorrow more than greed, agree to rule over us for our own good; but sacrifices must be made and many unfortunates could suffer! As we can see all too well our self appointed rulers will neither suffer nor sacrifice; that is for the poor and the unenlightened! Private jets to tropical resorts around the world for climate conferences; lifestyles of the rich and Godless!

Reply to  Abolition Man
November 17, 2019 1:01 am

Thanks AM, glad you liked! Funny isn’t it, I’d at least like to see some ‘solutions’ proposed which don’t all lead to the misery of Socialism!

HD Hoese
November 16, 2019 7:52 am

BioScience (among others) is into the crisis, we are going to politically run things business. This seems fairly new, older papers more reasonable. These are a couple, also the one on polar bears and seagrasses. More down to earth but still!!!

Beck, M. W., and 14 others. 2011.Oyster Reefs at Risk and Recommendations for Conservation, Restoration, and Management. BioScience 61(2):97–116.
Condon, R. H., and 16 other authors. 2012. Questioning the rise of gelatinous zooplankton in the world’s oceans. BioScience. 62(2):160-169. Rise of jellies as below.
Brotz, W., W. L. Cheung, K. Kleisner, E. Pakhomov and D. Pauly. 2012. Increasing jellyfish populations: trends in large marine ecosystems. Hydrobiologia. 690. 3-20.
“based on “Fuzzy set theory/logic.;”

“BioScience is included in Oxford Journals’ Developing Countries Collection, which provides online access to BioScience free or at a greatly reduced price to institutions in qualified low-income countries.”
“Each year, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) recognizes graduate students in the biological sciences who are demonstrating an interest and aptitude for working at the intersection of science and policy.”

They have an exceptionally high impact factor. Consensus sort of thing? Biological sciences have a bad history, eugenics, etc. I have a Ph.D. in Zoology, but a minor in Oceanography, know how big the ocean is.

Russ R.
November 16, 2019 8:14 am

Climate Science is no longer Science. It is a Rorschach test about your feelings. Which really is Social Psychology. That test is asking if “Free people” need to be reigned in by “collective force”, in order to prevent the masses from wreaking the place. Which really comes down to “Do we need a political aristocracy to limit our access to energy”?
I personally think this is a merging of groups that are in the Propaganda business and want to shape the public perception in a way the gives them permanent power over others. If you can convince people it is in their own interest to give up their independence, you have a subservient class that can be exploited in perpetuity. And most of the climate army don’t even know what they are fighting for. They are True Believers in the propaganda and no longer question those that wrap the details in scientific jargon they don’t understand. Those that could unravel the logical fallacies endemic in current climate propaganda, either don’t want to believe scientists would do that, or don’t want to take the time to fact check others for no pay.

When group think metastasizes and descends into mass psychosis, it is more about who you can believe to tell you an unbiased factual analysis of good measurements, and who will manipulate the data to get the answer they are looking for.
Climastrolgy is now more about what threads of research are coherent, and which need manipulation and fudge factors to remain logical.

Reply to  Russ R.
November 17, 2019 1:03 am

Indeed Russ, my own background is Psychology so understand what you are saying. Hence why this pervasive ‘groupthink’ of CAGW madness fascinates me!

James Walter
November 16, 2019 9:27 am

This link is to the whole list in excel format (.xls)

Here it is sorted by profession

Reply to  James Walter
November 17, 2019 1:03 am

Awesome James, thanks. I’ll get onto it when I have a mo…

GREG in Houston
November 16, 2019 1:33 pm

To convert to a searchable and sortable WORD file – you must have Adobe Acrobat Pro:

Print the PDF to another PDF file
Click “edit text” in the Adobe tools menu. It will convert it to searchable text
Export to Word.

Have not found a way yet to export to tabular data, like Excel

November 16, 2019 3:01 pm

“gullible mainstream media”. ‘Complicit’ is a better word, and I see that later in the article the author did indeed refer to the MSM as ‘accomplices’.
Regarding the revelation that more than half of students surveyed oppose free speech, I don’t think this is too big a problem. The hormone-burdened young have always been easy pickings for the Left. To a young person whose raging hormones compel them to compete for elevated status within the tribe, the only way they can distinguish themselves from the masses is by being opposed to what they see as the status quo. Mostly, they will grow out of it once they come to realize they are not the most incredible being to ever inhabit the planet. But, of course, some of them aren’t smart enough to figure that out and they are the ones end up in the ranks of the narcissistic Left. You know the ones? They’re constantly telling everyone how amazingly intelligent they are, and, by extension, how dumb everyone else is. But, as we all know, they’re just not smart enough to know that they’re not as smart as they think they are.

November 16, 2019 4:00 pm

Rod Long and Joe,
Yes, climates change and the history and impacts of this covers many disciplines. What I am addressing is the assumed link with CO2. I claim that it is insignificant. To be able to do this with any confidence requires a detailed understanding of radiative transfer of energy in the atmosphere and the rate at which transfer takes place – how long heat is trapped to produce a temperature rise. As far as I can see this has not been addressed in detail in the academic literature. I’ve looked as far as I can and have been asking alarmists and anyone else to provide references for years now with no result.

This is a fundamental flaw in the CliSci narrative.

To me, in the current political context, debates about impacts of climate change implicitly acknowledge the CO2 link.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  dai davies
November 16, 2019 6:14 pm

Yes, exactly. I have been asking the same question too. But it is worse because it’s only the ~3% of ~410ppm/v CO2 that is the driver of climate change according to alarmists and the IPCC. And yet nowhere is there any evidence this is causing warming and causing the climate to change, none outside a computer model that is.

It is all BS…Bad Science IMO.

November 16, 2019 6:02 pm

I don’t care how many agree, only how many have made skillful predictions. And it aint 11000… The rest is just noise.

November 16, 2019 7:01 pm

I downloaded the petition (the one without Mickey) and have started to analyze it. It’s not easy to group titles because they are all over the place. So far I’ve found 154 countries represented and 6762(!) titles used by the signers. The titles include MD, Ornithologists, Psychology, Entomology, and Primatology (though only a few of each). Spellings are not consistent so there are more of each group when I get around to accounting for that but here is the top twenty:

No Title 338
Professor 288
Researcher 231
PhD student 191
Associate Professor 138
PhD Student 114
Ecologist 92
Biologist 91
Assistant Professor 88
Postdoctoral researcher 77
PhD candidate 69
Postdoc 65
Ecology 62
Professor of Biology 58
Postdoctoral Researcher 56
Professor of Ecology 47
PhD 46
Research Fellow 46
Biology 43
PhD Candidate 43

Now the question is PHD of what? Basket weaving? Sometimes you can guess based on where they’re working but others… What I’m not seeing is a lot of signers that have titles like Atmospheric scientist, Climate researcher. Well, you get the picture.

November 17, 2019 10:09 am

A quote in the post by Rose McGowen? Not a bad quote in itself, but she’s not a practitioner of critical thinking, she’s a bad case of a lefty-loon.

Reply to  beng135
November 18, 2019 6:42 am

Meh, a broken clock is right twice a day.

Steve Parsonjs
November 17, 2019 7:19 pm

I clicked on what the author listed a s a source of the artuicle that has so greatly exercised him.

That BBC article clearly states the 11,000+ signatories is NOT presented as proof oc the consensus of climate scientists who havem, in fact, concluded from their research that the world is undergoing dangerous manmade climate change.

The 11,000+ signatories are clearly represented as ‘scientists’ who decided to sign a letter complaining the government needs to do more about the problem the climate scientists have found to be the case.

The author gets his shorts in quite a painful bunch complaining that there is a professor of the Mickey Mouse school! Ha ha ha! It IS funny! But it doesn;t mean that there is no consensus of climate scientists telling us there is dangerous manmade climate change.

It simply means this professor is a concerned citizen who signed a letter asking for more government action. The article seems to think the 11,000 are represented by the BBC as ‘the climate scientists” themselves!

Bad reading skills on the part of the author? Or a deliberate intent to deceive the reader?

Either way, not good!

Here is the clear description of what the list of 11.000+ is, from the BBC article that so offended the aiuthor:
” Some 11,000 researchers of all types and varieties from 153 countries have endorsed the research

The authors say they didn’t target individuals so there is a marked lack of some of the bigger names in climate change research.

Reply to  Steve Parsonjs
November 18, 2019 6:46 am

You’ve twisted your words in such knots to make absolutely no point whatsoever. Other than maybe that you are able to entirely miss the point… well done!

Stew Green
Reply to  Steve Parsonjs
November 18, 2019 1:24 pm

@SP OK the BBC title is not saying “climate scientists”
the BBC page begins
“A global group of around 11,000 scientists
have endorsed *research* that says the world is facing a climate *emergency*.”

BBC main radio news show #r4today tweeted
“11,000 scientists from 153 countries declare a climate emergency”

Twitter preview boxes say
“Around 11,000 scientists have endorsed research that says the world is facing a climate emergency.”

November 18, 2019 12:50 pm

Very good, and funny too, appraisal by Ezra Levant.

Reply to  leitmotif
November 18, 2019 1:30 pm


Johann Wundersamer
November 25, 2019 9:54 am

“Here’s the original file, try and put THAT into Excel (any ideas welcome)”

Did you mean: feed in text list to excel file

You can now import the data in the text files into a spreadsheet by following these steps:

1. Open a blank worksheet in Excel.

2. Go to Data | Import External Data | Import Data. …

3. Click the text file you want to import, then click Import.

4. Select the Delimited option (Figure C) and then click Next.

Jul 27, 2018

Verified by MonsterInsights