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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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.
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.
about as funny as Stephen King’s clowns
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.
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…
That’s an excellent observation right there …
We all know Tamino’s mind was so open his brains fell out long ago.
“Military Intelligence Unit” was the shark-jumpingest body I’ve ever had the misfortune to deal with.
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.
There is no climate! Only whether.
Or not…
Only whether or not the weather changes.
The question is whether or not we can weather all the weather changes.
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.
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.
My question is this: which weather and what 30 year?
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.
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.
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.
You’re right. I have been saying that for years, yet even still; there are climates with far longer cycles.
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
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.
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.
So true, Rory, so sadly true.
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.
The math that is important to them is:
$$ + oath = $$$$$$$$$$$$
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?
“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.
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.
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?
I admit it it…I keep denying that climate exists. I am a climate denier. ROFL
I believe in ladies’ hosiery: I’m a denier believer!
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.
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.
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
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?
The new name for woke climate alarmists (or anything woke) is a bedwetter…. Boy does it annoy them…..
Ahh. First coined by our old friend Chris Monckton quite some years’ ago. ☺
“Your name will also go on the list, what is it”!?
” Don’t tell him, Pike”…..
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.
“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.
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.
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
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?
I’m Spartacus
I signed it under a joke name.
Good plan but your joke name will be smothered among all the other jokers that have already put their name to it.
I saw Phil Jones’ name on the list of signatories but not Michael Mann’s. Do the two not talk anymore?
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.
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.