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

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’:

Sourced from www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50302392

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.

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?

“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?

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?

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’.

Source: www.petitionproject.org

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!