Climate Change: Who are these '11,000 Concerned Scientists'?

Academics and scientists are yet again issuing “consensus” statements on climate change. In 2017, we were warned by 16,000 scientists across 184 countries that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.” This past week, BioScience, an academic, peer-reviewed journal from Oxford University Press found 11,224 scientists, from 153 countries, who signed off on the latest climate change drivel. Citing a “moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is’,” they’ve published the paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” In dystopian tone, they’ve issued a demand for earth’s population to “be stabilized -- and, ideally, gradually reduced -- within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

With the disclaimer that I’m just a layman who resides in “flyover country”, who are these “11,000 Scientists,” and do they even have credibility to weigh in on this matter? Scientists, with few exceptions, are subject matter experts in specific fields -- their expertise isn’t inherently relevant and extensible across varying fields of science. For example, a physicist won’t teach a graduate-level course in Biology; a podiatrist won’t perform open heart surgery and a botanist has minimal insight on quantum computing. How many of these 11,000 scientists possess germane degrees in meteorology, climatology or atmospheric science? Lo and behold, BioScience actually published a list of these scientific signatories in the attached link -- so I looked.

As a frame of reference, the Department of Labor reports there are 10,000 atmospheric scientists in the U.S. Conversely, this list contains plenty of “experts” who have zero credibility on the topic of climate change, coming from fields such as: infectious diseases, paleontology, ecology, zoology, epidemiology and nutrition, insect ecology, anthropology, computer science, OB-GYN and linguistics. Bluntly, and no offense intended, I could care less what a French professor or a zookeeper thinks about climate change -- let alone allow them to tell me how to live my life.

This begs the question, “Why did so few metrorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric scientists sign off on this latest paper?” Perhaps they know this is faux science?

A couple of years ago I read an article about one of the hottest topics in physics, string theory. And the author said that if you were a physics professor, you had better believe in string theory. Physics departments did not tolerate doubters.

I wonder if the same thing is happening here. “Hey, professor. I noticed that you haven’t signed the Climate Change petition yet. It would be a shame if something bad happened to your career.”

“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” Tom Edison

This puts 11,000 concerned scientists in either the ten percent group or the eighty-five percent group.

Historically scientists, even competent individuals, have made bizarre pronouncement for political purposes. In Germany eminent physicists signed a petition denouncing Einstein’s theory of relativity. No good reason to denounce other than the prevailing power structure, who funded them, could not accept the insight of a Jew. In Russia the critics of the geneticist Lysenko, Stalin’s favorite biologist because he argued that newly learned communist values could be inherited, not only shut up but were forced to amend their thinking and research to accommodate the wishes of the ruling Communists.

The rants of the “climate scientists” won’t be the last time that scientists bow to prevailing power especially power that controls the purse.

There was an article on weather.com extolling this “10,000,000,000 scientist say”.......it’s been pulled. Like this American Thinker piece says only about 2% of the “scientists” listed know anything about weather. They just polled any discipline that has a PhD next to their name and well you know what you get. Gaia worship claptrap. The mentally ill left want this to be true, they hate you so much, they want to kill you.

‘A free society shouldn’t be run by scientists and bureaucrats.’

ideally a free society would be managed by a changing crop of public servants dedicated to keeping it, and us. free...but, it seems, few can resist the siren call of power and influence...

[A couple of years ago I read an article about one of the hottest topics in physics, string theory. And the author said that if you were a physics professor, you had better believe in string theory. Physics departments did not tolerate doubters.]

The difference is that physics is falsifiable and has both explanatory and predictive power. Climate “science” is glorified data collection combined with random guesses.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is worse than this article makes out.

You don’t even have to be a Scientist to be a member. For just $25 a year, anyone can become a “Concerned Scientist” regardless of education or experience.

https://www.ucsusa.org/about/ways-give/benefits-membership

So that 11,000 scientist also could include actors, Lawyers, Activists, Journ-o-list, etc

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Jane Fonda: 'I'm Not Buying Anymore Clothes' to Fight Climate Change