The leading media worldwide cranked up the volume when it spread the news of how a statement had been published in the journal BioScience. The statement was a collaboration of “over 11,000 from 153 nations”.
The Guardian, for example reported: “The world’s people face ‘untold suffering due to the climate crisis’ unless there are major transformations to global society.”
Like most major media outlets around the world, the Guardian handled the “statement” as if it were the final confirmation needed to finally end any further discussion and hesitation on rapidly moving to a new, transformed “global society”.
Slick sales job. Dr. Thomas Newsome falsely claiming over 11,000 “scientists” support the climate statement. Image cropped from video by University of Sydney.
The statement more hoax than scientific declaration
Days later, after a more careful scrutiny of the list – which the media failed to carry out, it was uncovered that the list of signatories was a declaration of scientific and media sloppiness and deception. One of the signatories was even cartoon character “Mickey Mouse”. But it gets worse than that.
11,224 list analyzed by Japanese blogger
Since then Japanese climate science skeptic and blogger, Kirye, spent dozens of hours thoroughly compiling and evaluating the 11,224 signatories using an Excel spreadsheet. Her findings have added greater clarity and exposed the true extent of the once media ballyhooed statement now turned hoax.
Kirye’s spreadsheet here.
5 of 11,224 a “climate scientist”
Of the 11,224 signatories, JUST FIVE (5) claimed to be a “climate scientist”.
Only 4 were meteorologists.
A vast number did not even state PhD or professor as their professional title/discipline. Only 2,796 (24.9%) had “professor” in their title. 1,481 (13.2%) of the signatories stated some form of PhD, including PhD “candidate”.
A total of 1,021 had “doctor in their title, i.e. only 9.1%. Many in an unrelated field.
303 of the signatories listed no professional title at all!
34 names had to be discarded altogether because they were invalid.
New climate experts: nephrologists, philiologists, pharmacists!
The vast majority were active in fields totally unrelated to climate science, such as “philiogist”, psychologist, CEO, political scientist, pharmacist, medical doctor, primatologist, physiopathology of the mitochondria, sociologist, industrial systems, nanoscientist, genetics, nephrologist, economist. biotech engineer, foreign language teacher, etc. In other words, it’s a list hyperinflated by unqualified climate activists. Others were affiliated with environmental activist groups.
“Disservice” to science …”blow to credibility”
Thie list and media handling were in fact so sloppy that it compelled German geologist and hjournalist Axel Bojanowski to write at Cicero here how the statement and list of signatories were “a disservice” to climate science and “a deep blow to the credibility of research (and the media), not only because the list of signatories has apparently been published without verification.”
“Mocks media quality control”
The former Der Spiegel science journalist added: “The fact that numerous representatives of environmental associations are among the signatories and many others without a professional title makes one doubt their scientific character” and that it “mocks” the “media’s quality control function.”
12 responses to “Japanese Analysis Of 11,224 Climate Signatories Exposes Media/Science Sham…”Deep Blow To Credibility””
Just following the warmists’ guidelines.
Yup, nothing to see there. Move along. //s//
They achieved a remarkable diversity. However, I am sorely missing at least one phrenologist.
Climatology isn’t really science anyway. You can strike off the 4 and make it zero.
And yet it will not be retracted, and it will continue to be quoted by thousands of other sloppy scientists and journalists until an even more eye-catching article gets published. Rinse and repeat.
“The fact that numerous representatives of environmental associations are among the signatories and many others without a professional title makes one doubt their scientific character” and that it “mocks” the “media’s quality control function.”
And is up to par for climate worrier’s
reportingemotive journalism generally.
The world is getting colder folks not warmer!
As an Australian citizen I am deeply embarrassed that another of these absurd polls or surveys has emanated from my homeland.
I don’t know if being an apparent expert on dingos (wild dogs) in the Tanami Desert qualifies one to conduct a legitimate survey of this nature but I guess it’s better than a cartoonist.
Not that even the most carefully conducted survey can add any insight into the validity or otherwise of a scientific theory.
Yes, it was clearly an attempt to argue from the “authority” point of view rather than any science.
I’ve done my own analysis of the 691 Spanish signatories in my own blog article in Spanish:
11.000 biólogos y Mickey Mouse nos dicen cómo tenemos que vivir
it “mocks” the “media’s quality control function.”
It is hard to mock what doesn’t exist.
[…] was available. It was checked by researcher Casey Plunkett (and others, link, see also here and here ). Plunkett found that only 240 individuals with professions that can be construed as bona fide […]