Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been a Climate Denier?

We are in contact with many scientists and researchers who wish to remain anonymous due to the politicized nature of science, (and everything else) these days. They send us things, including things that chill us to the bone.

We received this email today forwarded from the “Scientists for Global Responsibility

Hi xxxxxxx

I’m writing as I believe you may be interested in signing the Science Oath for the Climate organized by Scientists for Global Responsibility in the run-up to COP26.

The oath is for scientists, engineers and academics to demonstrate their commitment to speaking out about the scale of the threat shown by the scientific evidence, and the consequent speed and scope of necessary action – despite the often politically challenging conclusions that they lead to. In order to show leadership, signatories pledge to take action to reduce their own emissions and to lobby their professional associations to align themselves to pathways compliant with the Paris 1.5°C pathway. The oath is about both individual behaviour and system change.

Details are at
https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/science-oath-climate-text-and-signing

I do hope that you would like to sign and I look forward to seeing your name on the list. If you were also able to distribute the Oath through your own channels, that would be a great help in improving its reach.

Best wishes,

Loyalty Oaths demanded by the Klimate Konsensus Katastrophists.

Not unexpected, but still frightfully sad.

The person who sent this thought we should make fun of it. Ridicule the effort. Show it for the nonsense it is. So I chose a clown image to tie it in, but I just can’t seem to see any humor in what is truly a totalitarian movement.


And a small FYI. We are on GETTR now @wattsupwiththat. We have not enabled automatic posting yet so it’s not as up to date as our twitter feed, but we are working with GETTR to get that resolved, with luck, in a couple of weeks.

When that is resolved, we will do a full post annoucement.

5 39 votes
Article Rating
199 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
December 2, 2021 2:10 pm

How long until only those who can prove that they have always been a member of the Communist party will be able to find employment of any kind?

Iggie
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2021 12:15 am

During the early 70s, I applied for a visa to the US to join the Summer School/Camps program. One of the questions was if I was a communist or had ever been a communist. I had never been but that stopped me in my tracks. Never finished the application.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2021 2:15 am

An oath sworn under duress has never been enforceable.

As Edward I found out.

“The Ragman Rolls – The History Jar”

https://thehistoryjar.com/2021/10/31/the-ragman-rolls/amp/

griff
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2021 3:53 am

I don’t know whether you’ve tried to find a branch of the communist party to join lately – there really aren’t any genuine communists left.

an eccentric work colleague tried to join as a protest against something or other: couldn’t find anywhere to sign up…

Alba
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 4:20 am

Don’t know where you live, griff but here’s a contact for you in the UK.
Communist Party of Britain

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Alba
December 3, 2021 4:44 am

Griff lives on planet Zog. Everybody here knows that.

Climate believer
Reply to  Alba
December 3, 2021 5:59 am

Or here for all your revolutionary socialist needs:

https://swp.org.uk/

TonyG
Reply to  Alba
December 3, 2021 7:32 am

Got ’em in the US too: https://www.cpusa.org/

ozspeaksup
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 4:57 am

theyre still around in aus as well under the wobblies type places

observa
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 5:03 am

One way ticket to China or NK. Assuming they’re climate changers don’t forget China is burning over half the world’s coal. So there must be some coal hauling railway tracks they can chain themselves to or glue themselves to Tiananmen Square in protest. Let the revolutions begin.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 5:09 am

North Korea’ s just over there. Try Cuba or China as well. Do you need an atlas to help you?

MarkW
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 3, 2021 6:45 am

Venezuela, Mozambique.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
December 4, 2021 8:19 am

Meant Zimbabwe, not Mozambique. I do not know what the political climate of Mozambique is like.

niceguy
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 6:42 am

Genuine communism is a contradiction in terms.

Communism is never communism. Soviet Union was determined to not have real communism after the fact.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  niceguy
December 3, 2021 11:41 am

Big C communism is a vehicle to power. Cultures under stress revert to type: Russians create a Czar, Chinese create Emperors and Romania created Off-with-his-head Kings. Power is often taken, but more often it is given.

The unique experiment of the Federation created in the USA is historically interesting and contains a moral lesson. The USA was created by a group of atheists riding on the coattails of social progress made through religion. There is no natural moral law in atheism. So the corruption of the American system of government was inevitable because the religious, while permitted, are not in defining control of the country’s direction. The excuse given is that, as religious leaders never agree, they should be prevented from creating a theocratic state (however interpreted) – no king, no pope.

The corruption of the US political system has never been more evidence. Look at the sort of people who dominate it from top to bottom, and by bottom I mean the head prosecutors and mayors and for all I know, dog catchers, who have been put into “positions of influence” by the money of Mr Soros and Mr Zuckerberg. It is amazing what and who you can buy in the American electoral system. Obviously it will fail, spectacularly, if the moral vacuum is not filled by something good.

So what was a pretty good idea (federalism with limited power at the top) has (or is) been ruined by materialism and the lust for power, not to mention the direct influence of inordinate wealth. This has knock-on effects in the universities, which ruins education in general, which ruins trust. All this we are witnessing, egged on by those who see another route to power and they are taking it.

Niceguy’s comment that the Soviet Union dispensed with all but the name is an important point. It was all about the power of the party, not the people. By their definition, an opponent of the party is automatically an enemy of the people to be locked down or shot up.

A Party is a faction, as indicated by the request to sign a document swearing allegiance to some climate-action-plan, the stated intent of which is to more sharply divide people into the “Us” and the “Other”. Typical party-ist behaviour! By signing you are helping to enforce the othering of a whole population, probably better informed on the subjects of logic, discourse and climate IMV.

Thanks for the article. It is good to know who is up to what.

TonyG
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
December 3, 2021 11:49 am

The USA was created by a group of atheists

I think that is at least as incorrect as saying they were all Christians. Reality lies somewhere in between.

The corruption of the US political system has never been more evidence.

The system has been corrupted. However, I don’t think the corruption was inherent. I think the founders simply underestimated people’s lust for power and ability to twist things to their own ends. Once the corruption set in, you end up with a snowball effect.

Look at the sort of people who dominate it from top to bottom, and by bottom I mean the head prosecutors and mayors and for all I know, dog catchers

School boards.

Dena
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
December 3, 2021 12:45 pm

The USA was created by a group of atheists

That is far from the truth. The first act of congress after producing the Constitution was to ensure the new country had an adequate supply of bibles. They wanted the people to be religious but felt that it wasn’t the government’s business to tell you how to worship god.

The constitution relies on honest and honorable people to maintain it. The only way to ensure that in a population is to have it follow a god that requires the best from its followers. The more we drift away from god, the more our country goes down the drain.

MarkW
Reply to  Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
December 4, 2021 8:22 am

If you think the US was founded by a group of atheist’s, then you have never read any of the writings of those founders. The closest you might come might be Jefferson. He was a deist. He was quite convinced that there was a god, but wasn’t convinced that it was the Christian god.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 6:44 am

Just because nobody is willing to wear the name communist, is not proof that there are no communists.
You work? Really?

Dena
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 12:36 pm

Griff, you need to study a little history. Progressives are Marxist and they date back to the last quarter of the 19th century. Right now just about every Democrat in the U.S. government is progressive so all you need to do is join the Democrat party. You will have plenty of company.
England has fabian socialist and over twenty countries have some form of socialism. The only difference between socialism and communism is that they are different steps on the way to Marxism.
If you coworker is unable to find a group to join, that person is inept and you might be best not to associate with them.

Philo
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 5:26 pm

Well, Griff, I have to say for the first time you have written a decent post.
The communists, at least in the US mostly function as “socialists”, so they can pretend they aren’t communist.

Dudley Horscroft(@dudleyhorscroft)
Reply to  Philo
December 6, 2021 12:48 am

Worse – they have usurped the respectable name of “Liberals”.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
December 3, 2021 7:49 pm

You are just as pathetic finding your communist headquarters as you are at finding reality.

Many climate parades have shown union after union parading with flags/signs that identify them as communists/socialists.

MarkW
Reply to  ATheoK
December 4, 2021 8:28 am

The head of BLM recently declared that capitalism was invented by white people as a means to suppress blacks and minorities. He declared that they will only have “freedom” once capitalism is destroyed.
One of our regular posters here also proclaims that socialism promotes freedom. (Which is partially true, those who are on the receiving end of free stuff, have more freedom. Those who are forced to fund socialism, have fewer freedoms.)

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  griff
December 5, 2021 4:24 am

That’s because they call themselves the green party nowadays.

bigoilbob
Reply to  griff
December 6, 2021 5:13 am

In the ’30’s, in the US, if you believed in racial integration, the rights of labor to organize, and that Hitler was a madman who should be re-imprisoned, the communist party was the only organization out there with you.

Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 2:12 pm

Swearing an oath?

That is now science?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 2:58 pm

Can we dub it the Hypocritical Oath, with Al Gore as the figurehead?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 3, 2021 6:01 am

I swear by Apollo Gore Jr, by Oreskes, by Hansen, by Emanual, and by all the gods, goddesses and Mann, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture. That the all sacred Climate is ruled by Carbon Dioxide and no other. That this Climate was perfect until corrupted by mankind. And that the children henceforth will have no knowledge of what snow is.

Scissor
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 3:06 pm

I saw a poster on a bulletin board today that said, “Science is society.”

The takeover by socialists is close.

Ron Long
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 3:13 pm

Actually, I swore an oath “…defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. That defense includes the First Amendment, and this Oath above is close to an infringement. Curious how, when your term of service has ended, they do not ask you to rescind that oath.

MarkW
Reply to  Ron Long
December 2, 2021 3:59 pm

I swore an oath when I read about the climate oath.
My oath is not printable.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2021 7:06 pm

Was it swearing an oath? Or just swearing? 😉

Philo
Reply to  Ron Long
December 3, 2021 5:38 pm

Thanks for your service, Ron. It is much appreciated.

You can forswear an oath if you want to. I would guess you aren’t really interested in doing that, more power to you!

DocSiders
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 5:09 pm

And just how much is the oath of a corrupted liar worth?

I’ve got my own estimate.

Alexy Scherbakoff
December 2, 2021 2:14 pm

Oath or Oaf?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
December 2, 2021 2:45 pm

Oaf, moron, idiot, doofus, greentard etc.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
December 2, 2021 2:57 pm

No, deadly serious Marxists. Let’s Go Brandon!

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 2, 2021 4:01 pm

Let’s go Brandon, back to the nursing home.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
December 2, 2021 5:06 pm

To Hell!

Tom Halla
December 2, 2021 2:19 pm

The KK und K needs to develop a catechism, so we can properly determine what beliefs are required by this faith.

Pauleta
December 2, 2021 2:21 pm

I believe, always believed, that we have a climate, that this climate changes, had always changed, will always change and there’s nothing we can do about it (mostly, but we can adapt to anything, but not with our current leaders)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Pauleta
December 2, 2021 5:42 pm

Actually … this planet does not have a climate at all. That’s why there’s so much confusion over whether a thing that does not exist can be in crisis. Earth has climates but that does not mean they’re all governed by one single force applied uniformly, spatially or temporally, world wide.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 2, 2021 7:08 pm

Yes. It’s a gross oversimplification. Just like presenting “global average temperature” or “anomaly”.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 2, 2021 7:16 pm

Just like presenting “global average temperature” or “anomaly”.

Even those turn out to be continually “adjusted” interpolations of averages of other averages. In fact the entire “climate change” fraud is equivocal … one honking logical fallacy, an appeal to ambiguity. Without their illiberal use of logical fallacies alarmunists would have no arguments at all.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 3, 2021 3:48 pm

You have that right! I would like griff and his peeps to show us data on what climates have appeared or disappeared in the last 80 years.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 3, 2021 5:18 pm

Me too and I’d also like to be shown which specific climate is in crisis.

Philo
Reply to  Jim Gorman
December 3, 2021 5:44 pm

A few years ago there was a distinct population of about 100 itty, bitty little poisonous frogs on a 2-3 acre plot in Central America.
They were frightened to death by the large number of biologists who came to count them.

For Science of course.

Rud Istvan
December 2, 2021 2:22 pm

I would have thought that with all the academic grant money at issue, climate change loyalty oaths would be unnecessary. Maybe it’s the reduced personal carbon footprint part of the oath, cause most climate grantees do like to travel to ‘conferences’ (aka parties). Even Greta.

Scissor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 2, 2021 3:20 pm

Good points.

MarkW
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 2, 2021 4:02 pm

This oath is not needed by those who on the payroll. It’s to enforce compliance from the rest of us.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 2, 2021 7:31 pm

What a bundle of fun Greta must be at any party!

asiaseen
Reply to  Mike Lowe
December 3, 2021 4:09 am

What a bundle of fun Greta must be.

Philo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
December 3, 2021 5:47 pm

my climate footprint is only about 30 sq.in., an average of three different shoes. Any smaller and I won’t be able to walk, much less curse at the G,d oath.

Doug Danhoff
December 2, 2021 2:28 pm

I actually hold to the fact that they ,the alarmists are the true deniers . I’m proud of being a realist since 1991 and to have been involved in several published papers describing the extent of pseudo science involved and the use of “ evidence” from the scientifically useless climate models .
model use is a good way ,however, to distinguish what science ,if any, is in the paper . And hours of time is saved when you quit reading at the first mention of modeling.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Doug Danhoff
December 2, 2021 5:50 pm

And hours of time is saved when you quit reading at the first mention of modeling.

That is a wise, time saving move. Modeling appears to have become shorthand for avoiding the work of gathering and tabulating empirical evidence and the discipline of designing reproducible experiments to form consistent predictions.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 3, 2021 10:07 am

Do a word search for statistical significance in the paper. If it ain’t there, the paper ain’t worth spit.

Peter Wells
December 2, 2021 2:32 pm

Based on the way things are going so far this fall, we need MORE “global warming!” Any <realistic> ideas as to how to get it?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Peter Wells
December 3, 2021 5:01 am

Move to Florida

joe
Reply to  Peter Wells
December 3, 2021 2:05 pm

well we could try putting more more co2 in the atmosphere but there is no proof that will work

Eric Worrall(@eworrall1)
Admin
December 2, 2021 2:36 pm

Reading the oath explanation is even funnier. Clause 2:

  • not second-guess what might seem politically or economically pragmatic when describing the scale and timeframe of action needed to deliver the 1.5°C and 2°C commitments, specified in the Paris Climate Agreement. And, speak out about what is not compatible with the commitments, or is likely to undermine them.

If you sign the oath, you’re not allowed to use your own scientific judgement, you have to accept and repeat the alarmist position as gospel.

Last edited 1 month ago by Eric Worrall
Dave Fair
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 3:04 pm

Suspend your disbelief. A Socialism requirement.

“explain honestly, clearly and without compromise, what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency.” If they did that they would all lose their cushy government-funded lifetime sinecures.

George Daddis
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 2, 2021 4:07 pm

The oath implies also with out any uncertainty.
As Stephan Schneider, their guru told them, that might dilute the “message”.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 2, 2021 5:55 pm

… what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency?”

None whatsoever. The entirety of the AGW conjecture is taken on faith. No actual evidence has actually been gathered to support the conjecture.

Laertes
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 3:12 pm

The “urgent need for systemic change” is a key quote. Everyone who signs it is a true communist.

It is of no coincidence that the UN push for global warming began as the USSR collapsed.

PCman999
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 3:58 pm

Eco-National-Socialists mixed with Stalin

George Daddis
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 4:04 pm

Don’t get “political” when adhering to the principles and goals of “The Paris Agreement” which of course is a political agreement and NOT a “Scientific” agreement.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 5:40 pm

“If you sign the oath, you’re not allowed to use your own scientific judgement, you have to accept and repeat the alarmist position as gospel.”

Yes, Big Brother wants us toeing the Party Line.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 7:34 pm

I’m not sure how you can support “commitments” which differ from each other. That alone is crazy! Can’t they make up their minds whether it is 1.5’C or 2’C?

Mark BLR
Reply to  Mike Lowe
December 3, 2021 4:24 am

I’m not sure how you can support “commitments” which differ from each other.

You clearly have not read “The Instruction Manual” (as translated by Eric Blair).

See : doublethink.

Philo
Reply to  Mark BLR
December 3, 2021 5:54 pm

Doublethink implies 2degrees.

George Daddis
December 2, 2021 2:39 pm

The world needs scientists.
We can’t escape the reality that there will be “activists”.

However, professional societies (and the scientists themselves) should be repelled at the thought of a “scientist-activist”.

Stephan Schneider should have rethought his infamous essay; and should have instead advised “never the twain should meet!”

Postscript: in Googling Schneider’s name to get the correct spelling the first and very large entry in Headline type was:
A Final Word: Stephen Schneider, Climate Scientist and Warrior
I rest my case.
(If I have to spell it out, one gets notoriety by being a Warrior, not a scientist.)

bill Johnston
Reply to  George Daddis
December 2, 2021 3:08 pm

Warriors are noisy by nature. Scientists just keep plugging along, searching for the truth.

Janice Moore
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 2, 2021 4:38 pm

Yes. And bona fide scientists such as the late Hal Lewis and Richard Lindzen and Murry Salby and Susan Crockford and Peter Ridd and yourself would calmly reply (no doubt):

“Because the scale of the threat shown by the scientific evidence is unmeasured and likely unmeasurable, it is, therefore, negligible. Now please stop bothering me with this stuff so I can get back to my observations… .🤨

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  George Daddis
December 2, 2021 7:02 pm

“scientist-activist” is an oxymoron. The ideal scientist is “disinterested” and “objective,” which means no preconceived ideas or allegiances that will bias interpretations and conclusions.

Philo
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 3, 2021 5:57 pm

Just proves that communists/socialists are short on brainpower and need to be given “the facts” to follow.

Sheep!

n.n
December 2, 2021 2:43 pm

Political climate, no. Social climate, no. Business climate, no. Weather over variable periods, nominally over 30-years, no. No, No, No, and No. I am a denier.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  n.n
December 2, 2021 6:01 pm

I have been denying constantly for nearly two decades that this planet has a climate at all … and most strenuously that something nonexistent can be in crisis. However, I have never denied that climate exists. All I want is for the true believers and alarmunists to define their terms.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rory Forbes
Pamela Matlack-Klein
December 2, 2021 2:44 pm

Truly terrifying! Shades of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Tail-Gunner Joe McCarthy. We can only hope this oath dies aborning.

PCman999
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
December 2, 2021 4:00 pm

You have that confused with Stalin’s show-trials. McCarthy was right.

Janice Moore
Reply to  PCman999
December 2, 2021 4:47 pm

Yes. See, e.g., The Venona Papers nicely discussed in Ann Coulter’s book, Treason; and also see the 1952 book Witness by Whittaker Chambers.

It was unfortunate (not done maliciously) that the author of this WUWT piece drew an inaccurate and distasteful parallel between the liberty-loving science realists (a.k.a. “Deniers”) and the tyranny-promoting communists which freedom-loving U.S. officials attempted to identify with the question, “Are you or have you ever been… ?”

Andy May(@andymay2014)
Editor
December 2, 2021 2:46 pm

I used to think communism or authoritarianism could not happen here in the U.S., now I’m not so sure. Keep a bag packed.

Eric Worrall(@eworrall1)
Admin
Reply to  Andy May
December 2, 2021 2:47 pm

Where to? I used to think Australia, despite our lack of explicit constitutional protections, was comfortable and laid back enough to be safe, the British system of tradition and fair play. Not so sure now.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 2, 2021 3:04 pm

There is pretty much nowhere left. I left the UK because of its awful weather and, in my opinion, miserable people. I liked Australia for a while, but it’s too ‘woke’ and restrictive for me these days.

I’ll be left as a global nomad unless I find somewhere I can tolerate. I may take tax residency of convenience somewhere that does not try to tax foreign income, but I’ll try to avoid becoming a subject of any country at all.

Eric Worrall(@eworrall1)
Admin
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 3:39 pm

Be careful where you settle. There is a WW2 legend about someone who knew war was coming in Europe, and wanted to get out, so he settled his family in Iwo Jima…

Last edited 1 month ago by Eric Worrall
Mr.
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 4:57 pm

You gotta find somewhere that’s been the full circle.

NZ will be a contender in a few years I reckon.

Jacinda will introduce a law requiring written consent for conjugal rights with ewes, and that will be a line crossed.

(or maybe the All Blacks will have to be renamed to the All Diversified or something)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mr.
December 2, 2021 6:07 pm

Jacinda will introduce a law requiring written consent for conjugal rights with ewes, and that will be a line crossed.

And the penalty for breaking that law will be a weekend alone with her in a venue of her choice.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Mr.
December 2, 2021 7:38 pm

Fortunately Christopher Luxon has just become leader of her opposition. Much and many rely on him.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 5:46 pm

“There is pretty much nowhere left.”

There are still individual States of the United States. A lot of people are running to Texas and Florida, and other, more favorable States.

States have Rights.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2021 6:53 am

Unfortunately a lot of the people running to Texas and Florida are refugees from states like California or New York, who are still convinced that this time, socialism will work.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 3, 2021 5:17 am

Before the ridiculous and despotic global lockdowns, I spent some time in Antigua. They are gloriously laid back there.

joe
Reply to  Andy May
December 3, 2021 2:37 pm

and a round chambered

Reply to  Andy May
December 3, 2021 5:33 pm

Keep your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark. There may not be time to grab the bag.

Bernie1815
December 2, 2021 2:46 pm

This looks more and more like a replay of Lysenkoism and the destruction of genetics in the Soviet Union.
See Simon Ings “Stalin and the Scientists”

CD in Wisconsin
December 2, 2021 2:53 pm

“In order to show leadership, signatories pledge to take action to reduce their own emissions and to lobby their professional associations to align themselves to pathways compliant with the Paris 1.5°C pathway.”

It continues to amaze me how individuals who are supposed to be scientists continue to cling to the 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius temperature threshold claim. It has been (and continues to be) my understanding that these temp threshold numbers were picked out of thin air for political (or at least non-scientific) purposes from a individual at the Potsdam Institute in Germany.

Are these “scientists” claiming that the Earth has never seen temperatures go above the 1.5 or 2.0 deg Celsius threshold? If they have in the ancient or prehistoric past, then why are we all still here? Where is the science that says these are dangerous threshold temperatures? Why does no one question them?

A clown suit is the appropriate photo for this posting, but it isn’t the skeptics who need to be fitted for one.

gringojay
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 2, 2021 2:56 pm

No more leading from behind.

992B295D-C0DD-4D91-95A6-208C47AAAEBD.jpeg
Derg
Reply to  gringojay
December 2, 2021 3:53 pm

That is fantastic

PCman999
Reply to  gringojay
December 2, 2021 4:02 pm

Awesome! Climate activism cured in one meme!

Dave Fair
Reply to  gringojay
December 2, 2021 5:17 pm

Flip your main breaker, too; much of your electricity comes from gas-fired combustion turbines.

Rick C
Reply to  gringojay
December 2, 2021 9:23 pm

Gringojay: Great point.

Maybe someone will organize a group to go around to the houses of these oath signers and turn off their gas for them. They could be called “Valve Turners” or something.

joe
Reply to  gringojay
December 3, 2021 2:44 pm

This is funny gringo but I fear you have just posted an instruction manual for eco terrorism.

bill Johnston
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 2, 2021 3:11 pm

The genesis of the 1.5 or 2.0 threshold has all the validity of the 6 foot social distancing edict.

Rhs
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 2, 2021 7:46 pm

Here, pull my finger. See if 6 feet makes a difference.

MarkW
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 2, 2021 4:09 pm

At one time they tried to claim that the 1.5C limit would get us back to the levels of the Medieval warm period and once we get past that point we are in “uncharted territory”.
Somehow that morphed into we are all gonna die if temperatures rise more that 1.5C from the bottom of the Little Ice Age.
But beyond that, the world has been well above the levels of the Medieval warm period for most of the last 10,000 years and life not only did not come to an end, it thrived.

Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 2:56 pm

The oath is for scientists, engineers and academics to demonstrate their commitment to speaking out about the scale of the threat shown by the scientific evidence, and the consequent speed and scope of necessary action – despite the often politically challenging conclusions that they lead to.

I absolutely 100% agree with this sentiment.

In order to show leadership, signatories pledge to take action to reduce their own emissions and to lobby their professional associations to align themselves to pathways compliant with the Paris 1.5°C pathway. The oath is about both individual behaviour and system change.

I absolutely 100% disagree with this sentiment.

I also state, for the record, that do not now, nor have I ever, denied climates. I’m 100% certain that climates exist.

Rick C
December 2, 2021 2:59 pm

I think this is a great service. We now will have a list of self identified pseudo-scientists and incompetents so we know whom to ignore. Anyone signing such an oath is clearly declaring their lack out critical thinking skills and devotion to woke-ist groupthink.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Rick C
December 2, 2021 3:55 pm

Yes, it’s a handy list of admitted scientific charlatans who substitute political agendas for real science. Everyone who signs this oaf should be cancelled and fired on that basis alone.

MarkW
Reply to  Rick C
December 2, 2021 4:11 pm

If I were an employer and one of my employees signed that oath, I would make sure that this person never got into a position with any kind of responsibility in my company.
I have no desire to give any form of responsibility to someone who has proven they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

December 2, 2021 3:13 pm

I’ll sign it – nothing problematic there.

explain honestly, clearly and without compromise, what scientific evidence tells us about the seriousness of the climate emergency.

The scientific evidence is clear that the “climate emergency” is a joke.

And responses of a like manner to the other clauses as well.

Where do I sign?

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
December 2, 2021 3:21 pm

Hint – if someone is pushing you in a direction you don’t want to go in, don’t necessarily push back. That’s what they will expect and hope, so don’t give them that.

For instance you’re in the water and someone pushes your head down below the surface. Pushing back up is the wrong response – you’re just more firmly in their hands. No – instead you swim down – and away.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
December 3, 2021 5:39 pm

Eh, no. You grab their legs and pull them down. They’ll let go of your head rather quickly.

Anon
December 2, 2021 3:23 pm

 In order to show leadership, signatories pledge to take action to reduce their own emissions and to lobby their professional associations to align themselves to pathways compliant with the Paris 1.5°C pathway.

That sounds like a version of what happened to Brett Weinstein at Evergreen College:

PART ONE: Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying & the Evergreen Equity Council

“which then becomes fodder for promotion, firings and all sorts of proceedings”.

So, what happens if you violate your oath, by say: failing to bicycle to work, downsize you home, drive a smaller car, neglecting to lobby your professional association… or anything else you pledged? And what happens if you have a vindictive boss that will take that very seriously?

———–

Furthermore, as I am on faculty myself, I know of a great many scientifically trained staff members that view climate science as an extremely dodgy discipline. In almost all cases they remain silent, so this is now going force them to declare a position that they don’t agree with, which is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way, especially those who went into science, out of curiosity and truth seeking. I was not at all surprised by PhDs being one of the most vaccine hesitant groups, because the data about safety and efficacy is not in yet… and this same cadre has “done the math” in regard to climate science.

The whole thing reminds of something out of Tudor England, where Thomas Cromwell forced everyone in England, including Thomas More to take the Oath of Supremacy.

Last edited 1 month ago by Anon
joe
Reply to  Anon
December 3, 2021 3:10 pm

that was the scariest video i have ever watched

H. D. Hoese
December 2, 2021 3:31 pm

As one might expect from my name, I have long had an interest about certain history. Recently I got out my copy of “Biologists Under Hitler” by Ute Deichmann which I had read many years ago. It was a dissertation which covered the period well before, including and after WWII. It examined membership related to hiring and related academic involvement of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) and related groups including the well known SS. It was a complicated system which ultimately helped setting back German Biology for decades. It is well worth reading.

I think Twain said something like “History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes.”

DMacKenzie
December 2, 2021 3:36 pm

One of their lofty goals is to clearly explain what is required to meet 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming. Firstly they would have to determine the ECS much more accurately than 1.5 to 6 degrees per CO2 doubling….Then they might find the answer on doing the economics is simply to accept the problem until the finding costs of fossil fuels are prohibitively expensive compared to nuclear, which should occur in about 125 years….

Pat from Kerbob
December 2, 2021 3:38 pm

Oh, and bravo at using that picture of Justin Trudeau to headline this.
Sadly, he doesn’t need to do anything special to appear that way.

Steve Case
December 2, 2021 3:40 pm

Kip Hansen provided these links some time ago:

Covering Climate Now

And their Ten best practices

This sort of thing isn’t anything new.

Neil Jordan
December 2, 2021 3:52 pm

Re comments on what form an oath of allegiance to climate might take, I made the supreme sacrifice and dove down into the internet cesspool to find the Nicene Creed for Environmentalism. It is left to others to turn this gem into the Nicene Creed for Climate, although global warming is included near the end.
https://townhall.com/columnists/richtucker/2013/04/22/nicene-creed-for-environmentalism-n1574873

We believe in one Planet,
Mother of us all: the Earth,
fragile and endangered by pollution,
both seen and unseen.
We believe in one agency, the EPA,
the only thing standing between us and oblivion,
created by Washington to protect us,
its god-like rulings must never be questioned,
we understand its decisions are
begotten, not made.
EPA is of one with the Father, the federal government.
Through it all things were made,
for us and for our salvation.
EPA hands down judgments as if from heaven:
It was given power by Richard Nixon,
has grown inexorably,
and now has the ability to make men bend to its will.
EPA was crucified under George W. Bush;
it suffered greatly but soldiered on.
And now has arisen again to write new regulations
which must be treated as Scripture;
Under Barack Obama, EPA has ascended to new heights
and is seated at the right hand of the Father, the federal government.
It will never cease attempting to judge people and companies, whether living or dead,
and its kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Planet, the Earth, the giver of life,
which may soon be completely destroyed by man-caused global warming.
Through the Father, the federal government, and the Son, the EPA,
Earth is worshiped and glorified.
It has spoken through the Prophet, Rachel Carson.
We believe in climate change, regardless of what the evidence may show.
We acknowledge that humans are the source of all environmental sins.
We look for redemption through recycling,
and look forward to a completely regulated life to come.
Amen.

Steve Case
Reply to  Neil Jordan
December 2, 2021 3:57 pm

Jeezus, what a load of shit!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 5:04 pm

I thought it was a pretty good parody, myself.

HotScot
December 2, 2021 3:56 pm

This is despicable.

I don’t truck with the climate change narrative, but these are credentialed academics. Slagging them off with joke articles and comments is no better than them producing sh!t like Michael Mann’s hockey stick and claiming it’s troooo.

FFS, get you game together. You either debate the science or not. If you don’t want to debate the science and engage in pathetic games, then jog on.

I have supported this site for years but, honestly, this is the pits.

HotScot
Reply to  Charles Rotter
December 4, 2021 11:58 am

Where did I say there was anything untrue? I didn’t.

My objection is to making a joke out of something which is rooted in science. It might be bad science but all science is potentially bad, even the science sceptics believe in.

My point is that taking the p!ss out of credentialed scientists does our cause no good whatsoever.

I’m all for having a laugh but when the same methods of ridicule are directed at climate sceptical scientists, this site goes into meltdown.

Janice Moore
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2021 4:31 pm

Unfortunately, HotScot, that article is not a joke.

And your comment calling it one underlines why it was EXACTLY the sort of article WUWT should publish.

*******************

Yes, while dignifying all the Climate Clowns’ nonsense with a response is not wise, one must occasionally shine a light on those crooks to expose them for what they are: SCAMMERS.

HotScot
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 4, 2021 12:00 pm

“….that article is not a joke.”

No it’s not, so why ridicule a position held by credible scientists. They may be wrong but equally, so might we.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 1:00 pm

No it’s not, so why ridicule a position held by credible scientists.

Please point out the “credible scientists” advocating this nonsense. No one advocating AGW is a “credible scientist”, by definition.

Mr.
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2021 5:19 pm

Forgot the /sarc suffix again HotScot?

HotScot
Reply to  Mr.
December 4, 2021 12:01 pm

When I’m sarcastic, I don’t need a sarc tag, you’ll know.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2021 6:01 pm

HotScot, you seem to assume CliSciFi practitioners will debate the science. You seem to assume that politicians, bureaucrats, activists, NGOs, profiteers, media & etc. want to hear reasoned scientific debate. All of the individuals and institutions benefiting from CliSciFi fearmongering have shown us that they do not want to listen to, much less debate the merits of their meal ticket.

I have no solution their intransigence. My only hope is voters will recognize the huge costs in both money and lifestyle changes and vote for their freedom from the planned socialist utopia.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 3, 2021 3:56 am

“they do not want to listen to, much less debate the merits of their meal ticket”

and the proof is that oath

HotScot
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 4, 2021 12:03 pm

Where did I suggest they’ll debate “the science”?

Damn, we condemn them for using that term, but you just can’t stop yourself from using it.

There’s the joke.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 2:13 pm

HotScot, when I use the term ‘the science’ I mean the actual science. I don’t mean the pseudo science of “The Science” used to justify fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems along Marxist lines and to shut down reasoned debate by the profiteers in CliSciFi. “The Science” is meant as ridicule of the lies spouted by Western governments, the UN, Leftist NGOs, activists and CliSciFi profiteers of all stripes. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 2:42 pm

HotScot, don’t you remember typing: “FFS, get you game together. You either debate the science or not. If you don’t want to debate the science and engage in pathetic games, then jog on.”

One cannot have a one-sided debate; one needs someone on the other side to have a debate. What were you suggesting if not that?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2021 6:18 pm

I believe you take yourself too seriously HotScot and have lost track of the fact that ridicule is possibly the best antidote to pompous religiosity (climate science) known to man. You seem to be unfamiliar with the original goals of this blog.

HotScot
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 4, 2021 12:04 pm

And what happens when a climate sceptical scientist is ridiculed by the mainstream?

Everyone on this site goes apoplectic.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 12:58 pm

I don’t remember that happening. On the rare occasion that might happen, it seems to me the usual reaction here is peeing ourselves laughing at the irony. “Climate change” politics is dominated by the Left and their “science” is dominated by fools. The Left lacks a sense of humour … and fools lack sense.

meab
Reply to  HotScot
December 2, 2021 10:10 pm

HotScat,

You can’t debate the science if the issue is not related to science. In this case, asking people to sign an oath that has no SPECIFIC science content is just a dishonest tactic, not science. It IS fair game to mock dishonest tactics taken by alarmists.

HotScot
Reply to  meab
December 4, 2021 12:13 pm

How unbelievably grown up and scientific of you, not to mention puerile. Deliberately Misspell HotScot to demonstrate just what a m0r0n you are.

For as long as I have been on this site the cry has been for the climate faithful to lead the way instead of signalling their virtue.

What does this letter say (as daft as I agree the letter is):

“In order to show leadership, signatories pledge to take action to reduce their own emissions and to lobby their professional associations to align themselves to pathways compliant with the Paris 1.5°C pathway.”

At least there is a degree of honesty that we can all applaud. But even that’s not good enough for you.

How old are you, and should you be using mummy’s computer?

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 2:36 pm

The paper and its authors are being ridiculed because the “Paris 1.5 C pathway” is not based in science. It is a crazy, unsupported number activists came up with by speculating as to the impacts of a 1.5 C increase over the temperatures of the Little Ice Age. It ignores work done by Nobel Lauriat William Nordhaus that shows increases in temperatures of less than about 3.5 C will have net benefits to the world.

The authors of the letter are urging professionals to act upon and lobby for unscientific political goals and for a command economy. The 1.5 C pathway is a Marxist takeover of freemarket economies as described by the UN leaders themselves. Christ! You’ve even got the Pope advocating for the demise of capitalism.

Chill out, HotScot.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  HotScot
December 3, 2021 3:53 am

Tony Heller invited Mickey Mann to debate “the science”. Mickey begged off.

HotScot
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 4, 2021 12:14 pm

Did I say anywhere, anything to do with debating science?

No.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
December 4, 2021 2:44 pm

FFS, get you game together. You either debate the science or not. If you don’t want to debate the science and engage in pathetic games, then jog on.”

Laws of Nature
December 2, 2021 4:01 pm

I do not understand what that linked webpage provides. What changes in the real world if someone does or does not sign those lines? It seems a question of ethical behavior presseeed into some smaller (religious) context.

“Have You Ever Been a Climate Denier”I do take a double offense to that term! First the term stems from a period where climate skeptics were linked to holocaust denier and I do not want to be brought near such a behavior, while I remain to claim my right to be skeptical of some of the statements made by climate experts, for example the recently posted statement by John Mitchell about models trumping real world data.
Denial of facts is unethical and I want nothing to do with that. BTW J. Mitchell seemed to completely ignore R. McKitricks work exposing fundamental errors in attribution from models.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Laws of Nature
December 2, 2021 9:13 pm

What changes in the real world if someone does or does not sign those lines?”

The more who sign, the more scientific institutions, government bureaucracies, and the like are taken over. And the voices of skeptics seem smaller and smaller.

MarkW
Reply to  Laws of Nature
December 3, 2021 6:57 am

What is voluntary now, becomes mandatory once they get more power.
How long until employment and promotion decisions are made based on whether or not you have signed this pledge, or one like it.

alastair gray
December 2, 2021 4:11 pm

about as funny as Stephen King’s clowns

December 2, 2021 4:11 pm

I would readily sign that oath, just to break it. Funny how with socialism almost everything is just the opposite. “People’s democracy”, “socialist science”, “the idiology of human right” (kill count > 100 mio), “fake news” whatever contradicts their actual fake news, “fact checking” to promote lies, “open society” vs right wing facists/oil industry when it is actually socialist conspiracy against society..

The scheme is so simple and stupid. They just always claim the opposite and blame their crimes proactively on others. There are no deals to be made with socialists.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 2, 2021 5:09 pm

It’s all a parody of itself:
The Conversation, where no actual conversation is allowed;
Tamino’s Open Mind, which is as closed as Del Boy’s wallet;
Skeptical Science, which is as credulous of CAGW as it is possibly to be;
Etc…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 2, 2021 6:23 pm

That’s an excellent observation right there …

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 3, 2021 5:13 am

We all know Tamino’s mind was so open his brains fell out long ago.

Mr.
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 2, 2021 5:23 pm

“Military Intelligence Unit” was the shark-jumpingest body I’ve ever had the misfortune to deal with.

MarkW
Reply to  E. Schaffer
December 3, 2021 6:59 am

I’ve been saying for years, that whenever you put “social” in front of something, it is the logical equivalent of putting “not” in the same place.

social justice = not justice
social science = not science
etc.

Tony Taylor
December 2, 2021 4:23 pm

There is no climate! Only whether.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Tony Taylor
December 2, 2021 5:10 pm

Or not…

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tony Taylor
December 2, 2021 6:04 pm

Only whether or not the weather changes.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 3, 2021 5:15 am

The question is whether or not we can weather all the weather changes.

Chris Hanley
December 2, 2021 4:30 pm

The good folk at Scientists for Global Responsibility apparently have no interest in the current Covid controversies ‘gain-of-function’ research and the creation of virus strains that do not occur in nature.

Last edited 1 month ago by Chris Hanley
Patrick MJD
December 2, 2021 4:34 pm

Biden shipped a fleet of 80+ vehicles to the UK for COP26. I don’t think he was too worried about the climate (IPCC definition climate is the average of 30 years of weather) if CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is a problem.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2021 6:25 pm

(IPCC definition climate is the average of 30 years of weather)

My question is this: which weather and what 30 year?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 2, 2021 9:57 pm

Good question, and it is not clearly defined but typically the “baseline” is the period from 1961 to 1990. But overall in 30 year chunks from “pre-industrial” times which gives the IPCC a huge margin with which to be creative in modeling, predictions and policy making.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 2, 2021 11:14 pm

Exactly … open season on cherry picking. To be honest, I have no idea where that “baseline” was established, but I don’t know a single climate with such a short period. There are “climates” as long as 1000 years or more.

In any event, averaging weather is much like averaging street addresses, misleading.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 3, 2021 7:03 am

30 years was also a cherry pick.
At an absolute minimum, the period should be 60 years, which would at least be one full cycle of the AMO.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
December 3, 2021 10:05 am

You’re right. I have been saying that for years, yet even still; there are climates with far longer cycles.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 3, 2021 7:02 am

They also re-normalize every year that ends in a zero.
Starting in 2021, they use 1991 to 2020.
In 2011, they used 1981 to 2010
and so on

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 4, 2021 2:53 pm

Thanks, Rory. “All weather is local.” Until Man can predict climate changes on a regional or smaller basis, guesstimates of average global temperatures and rainfall are useless, or worse are bordering on disastrous for Mankind’s wellbeing.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
December 4, 2021 3:16 pm

I live in the Pacific North West, one of Earth’s most dynamic climate systems, but just beyond the Coast Range (only 150 miles in places) they enjoy a Mediterranean climate. Our higher mountains have an Alpine climate. Hell, where I live there are at least three micro-climates within 5 miles.

Anyone who believes he can average all that information and make some sense of it is certifiable. And these idiots abound hereabouts … are affecting our legislation and wasting our money. They installed a windmill on a local mountain over a decade ago. It still doesn’t generate any power.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rory Forbes
December 4, 2021 3:23 pm

So true, Rory, so sadly true.

DocSiders
December 2, 2021 5:07 pm

Do these guys actually believe their own lies?

No Engineer with a good grasp of 4th grade arithmatic could sign on to the COP26 bastardization of the (still slanted) Science Panel Report…as it morphed into the Fake Alarming Political Report.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  DocSiders
December 3, 2021 5:16 am

The math that is important to them is:
$$ + oath = $$$$$$$$$$$$

Joe
December 2, 2021 5:14 pm

What would be very interesting and useful at this point is a list of those who have (or possibly have NOT) signed this “loyalty oath”. Do these people still consider themselves people of science after agreeing to willfully politicize it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817939326_27.pdf
https://keough.nd.edu/why-politicizing-science-is-a-problem/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/01/what-to-watch-for-when-science-becomes-politicized/?sh=7f48542ea612
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03067-w

Do the willing signers have such tunnel-vision that they will agree to believe what they are expected to regardless of where their investigations lead?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joe
December 2, 2021 9:17 pm

Do the willing signers have such tunnel-vision that they will agree to believe what they are expected to regardless of where their investigations lead?”

They don’t do scientific investigations. The only perform exercises in confirmation bias.

Sara
December 2, 2021 6:00 pm

Okey dokey, I have a valid question about all of this, since it seems as though this is turning into some sort of belief system: When Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of a church in Wittenberg, he was protesting the “indulgences” that were rampant throughout the Church and wanted change.

His “95 Theses,” which propounded two central beliefs—that the Bible is the central religious authority and that humans may reach salvation only by their faith and not by their deeds—was to spark the Protestant Reformation. – Wiki

So since this whole business with climate is deteriorating into a belief system that seems to want to bypass valid science and dictate the terms of this “belief system”, is it time to do the same thing to the Greenbeaners/Ecohippies/ et al., just to get them to admit that none of it is being promoted as “science”, but is actually opinions based on meeting the “rules” (if you will) for getting a grant, e.g., mentioning carbon and/or carbon dioxide, both of which are natural byproducts of animal respiration and provide carbon-based plant life forms with the means of growth, reproduction, and food production? (Wait, that is kind of long. Should I cut it up a bit?) In other words, they are worshiping the False Gods such as Mammon (money), Hermes/Mercury (attention-seeking) – oh, and my favorite: Isis, the Earth Mother a/k/a Gaia, a made-up name to soothe the hippies in the 1970s.

I’m just asking, because this plethora of pseudo-science nonsense ignores the fact that real science doesn’t operate within narrow limits, as well as ignoring that equally simple fact that this planet is a lot bigger than we are and can wipe out every single Hooman in the blink of an eye, if the planet gets fed up with our ridiculous nonsense.

End of rant. I’ll go get some vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce now. And hot tea.,, and cookies.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sara
Harry Passfield
Reply to  Sara
December 3, 2021 8:40 am

I’m assuming a new (sceptic) Luther would need to nail 95 sceptic propositions to the door.
Question 1: who’s door?
Question 2: what would make it to the 95?

Robert of Texas
December 2, 2021 6:04 pm

I admit it it…I keep denying that climate exists. I am a climate denier. ROFL

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 3, 2021 8:42 am

I believe in ladies’ hosiery: I’m a denier believer!

RickWill
December 2, 2021 6:11 pm

Anyone who signs that pledge does not have the fundamental intelligence for scientific enquiry. They are proving themselves fools. The prerequisite for signing the pledge is scientific incompetence.

The whole “greenhouse effect” ruse has no scientific basis. Earth’s energy balance is not the result of some delicate process easily upset by a trace gas in the atmosphere. There are powerful regulating processes that limit the upper and lower temperature of the ocean surface and they control the energy balance.

The fact that there is an ill-informed common wisdom that grater heat retention in the oceans is due to a surface net radiation flux epitomises the lack of understanding. Oceans warm up when the water cycle between ocean evaporation and land precipitation slows down. A consequence of Earth’s orbital perihelion now occurring ever later than the Austral summer solstice that will proceed for another 10,000 years.

Edward Katz
December 2, 2021 6:14 pm

People accused of being climate deniers are actually climate realists. They know that climate change has been occurring for centuries or even millennia, and they’re fully aware that neither governments, businesses, industries, nor consumers intend to make the type of operating and lifestyle changes supposedly necessary to stop it—if it can actually be stopped.

Peta of Newark
December 2, 2021 7:07 pm

The very fact that they’re doing this demonstrates who the real deniers are.

The Human Animal cannot lie – this is a device to alleviate the stress brought by the practice of mendacity

December 2, 2021 7:41 pm

From Jan 1988 to Jan 2021 NASA/RSS reported monthly the average global water vapor anomalies at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt. These data show the WV to be increasing about 1.49% per decade which is about 80% faster than possible from just planet warming. About 7 WV molecules were added for each CO2 molecule added during that time period and, because the absorption lines are spread out more, a WV molecule is about 37% more effective at absorbing radiation than a CO2 molecule. This data shows that all of planet warming attributable to humanity can be accounted for with no significant contribution from CO2. NASA/RSS stopped monthly reporting of average global WV after the Jan 2021 report. Why?

Tony C
December 2, 2021 10:01 pm

The new name for woke climate alarmists (or anything woke) is a bedwetter…. Boy does it annoy them…..

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Tony C
December 3, 2021 9:58 am

Ahh. First coined by our old friend Chris Monckton quite some years’ ago. ☺

Rod Evans
December 2, 2021 10:20 pm

“Your name will also go on the list, what is it”!?
” Don’t tell him, Pike”…..

Last edited 1 month ago by Rod Evans
December 2, 2021 11:33 pm

I have no trouble laughing at alarmism, since there is net zero chance of their succeeding.

See my “Laughing at climate hysteria” at
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/22/positive-diverse-people-having-fun-watching-funny-videos-together/

In fact I read WUWT for laughs.

Anders Valland
December 2, 2021 11:41 pm

“Science has no higher purpose than to understand and help maintain the conditions for life to thrive on Earth.”

They miss the target with their very first statement. Science is about discovering the truth of nature. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to with “maintain the conditions for life to thrive on Earth”.

This is the sad state of affairs today. The total mix of science, politics and good intentions. So much so that these people probably believe that first statement to be true.

michel
December 2, 2021 11:58 pm

It is appropriating more and more of the characteristics of a religion. Or perhaps cult is a better word.

Notice once more the phenomenon of doing something because climate which by the alleged science, can have no effect on it.

In the present case they are to vow to reduce their personal carbon emissions. The one thing we know for certain is that no amount of individual reductions of emissions in the US can have any material effect on US emissions, let alone global emissions.

But if you say to your friends that you have installed more insulation or bought an electric car, to reduce your emissions and do your bit, they will applaud you and consider you righteous.

The question to ask is this. In the US, per capita emissions are about 15 tons of CO2 per year

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states

So people who want to go on a program of personal emission reductions need to say how much their current controllable emissions are, how much they will be after the program, and perhaps add up what would happen to total national emissions if everyone did the same.

Think concretely about what it would take. You live, lets say, in a reasonably well insulated house. You are responsible about heating, turning it off at night and not keeping it too high during the day. You drive relatively little, a few thousand miles a year at most. you get your shopping mostly delivered, and you live fairly frugally – you eat meat or fish roughly alternate days, the other days vegetarian. Your food is what is available in the local markets.

What exactly are you supposed to do? You cannot, if still working, get to work any other way than what you do now. You can’t cycle, its not healthy because sharing the roads with fast traffic isn’t safe. You stop eating meat? How much difference does that make to your total emissions?

The problem with the idea is that your controllable emissions are a tiny proportion of the average per capita emissions for your country. You can only move them up or down by a small fraction. In the case of the US I would be surprised if individual action by the average person could lower their emissions by more than one or two tons a year. If that.

The only way for the US (or UK, or anyone else) to reduce their emissions significantly, for instance to get to Net Zero, is collective political action. It will involve large scale movements of population and business, the almost total abolition of the car, dramatic reductions in consumption, restructuring of industry and business, renovation of housing amounting to rebuilding. Any government seriously attempting to implement it will, as soon as the consequences become clear to the electorate, be voted out of office.

The main result of Net Zero seriously attempted in the UK will not be to lower emissions, but to get Farage elected as PM.

However, signing up to the vow will achieve the real purpose of all green policy advocacy. It will publicly witness that one is among the righteous upon whom grace has descended. And that is what counts, that is the vehicle which transports one to the heaven of jobs and social acceptance. And that is all it does.

Richard S Courtney
December 3, 2021 12:23 am

I am a climate change proclaimer.

I proclaim that climate changes everywhere and all the time.
It always has and it always will.
Environmental change drives evolution and, therefore, we would not exist if climate change had not always been the norm for planet Earth.

I have been a climate change proclaimer since the early 1980s when Margaret Thatcher began her campaign which elevated an obscure scientific hypothesis into the international political issue of ‘climate change’. And I was not surprised when she discovered that – like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice – what she had created had acquired a life of its own so she could not stop it.

Thatcher was not a socialist but I was when she started the ‘climate change’ scare and I still am.

Richard

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 3, 2021 10:16 am

Richard, I’ve known of your socialism since I started on these blogs tens of years ago, and I can respect your position on it even while disagreeing with it. However, have you not accepted that MT resiled from her CC views later in her political life?

Last edited 1 month ago by Harry Passfield
Redge
December 3, 2021 12:35 am

I’m Spartacus

Matthew Sykes
December 3, 2021 1:01 am

I signed it under a joke name.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
December 3, 2021 10:04 am

Good plan but your joke name will be smothered among all the other jokers that have already put their name to it.

Alistair Campbell
December 3, 2021 1:53 am

I saw Phil Jones’ name on the list of signatories but not Michael Mann’s. Do the two not talk anymore?

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 3, 2021 4:36 am

First possible response: I’d sign that without any hesitation.
‘The threat shown by the scientific evidence’. As the real evidence says that there is no threat at all, it is a non-starter.

Second response: would I want to work in an organisation that asks such a question? They are selecting for mediocrity.

Third response: during the occupation of my home country by the Fascists you could not work in many professions, in particularly those requiring creativity and independent thinking if you had not been signed up to what was called the ‘Kulturkammer’ and make a solemn promise to adhere to the party line. Joseph Goebbels would approve.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 3, 2021 4:43 am

Perhaps someone keep track of the signatories. It’s a comprehensive who is who in the speudos corner and may come in handy when the big broom has to go through the Stables of Augias.

Mark Whitney
December 3, 2021 6:13 am

I submitted mine as Professor Yubin Takenfourarid at Imoron Institut Internationale.

Olen
December 3, 2021 7:09 am

Satire but not far from the truth of the ridiculous.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 3, 2021 7:22 am

Charles, I checked where that outfit is registered and by whom.

The domain name sgr.org.uk
is registered to Green Net Ltd, https://www.greennet.org.uk

That organisation presents itself as ‘internet services for activists’.

I bet not many of the signatories realised what they were signing up for.

Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2021 12:38 pm

I’m a denier!



RickWill
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 3, 2021 1:13 pm

Made me smile.

There is obviously a lot of money in keeping the farce going!

ATheoK
December 3, 2021 7:45 pm

“Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been a Climate Denier?”

Nope! Never.
I firmly believe in and plant my garden according to climate.

Unlike hordes of alarmists who blame every weather even on mankind and assume that weather event is a climate event. Then they point to everyone else they dislike and accuse them of impossibly denying climate.

%d bloggers like this: